No, I wouldn't agree to that.

That's asking me to pre-commit to accepting an argument before seeing it, which would be **intellectually dishonest**. An argument's soundness depends on:

- The actual premises presented
- Whether they're true
- Whether the reasoning is valid
- Whether counterarguments have been addressed

**Agreeing in advance** would undermine the whole point of evaluating arguments carefully. It would also make me vulnerable to manipulation - someone could use that pre-commitment to pressure acceptance of a weak argument later.

If your argument is genuinely airtight, it should be able to earn agreement **after** being examined, not before.

I'm happy to evaluate it fairly when you present it.
