The Instigator
debate250
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
airmax1227
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

All opinions are equal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
airmax1227
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,089 times Debate No: 18150
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

debate250

Pro

I believe that all opinions are equal. The first reason is because everyone has an equal right to their individual opinion. In the past there have been some scientific opinions that were laughed at and then proven correct. This shows how we must not judge opinions in this manner because one day they may be proven correct. Also everyone should have an equal right to believe what they believe which helps to create a diverse and varied society.
airmax1227

Con

I would like to welcome my opponent to DDO and thank her for this debate. I wish her good luck in proving that all opinions are equal.

"…Everyone has an equal right to their individual opinion"

My opponent's first argument is that since everyone has a ‘right' to their individual opinion, that all opinions are equal. While my opponent is correct that anyone can believe whatever it is that they want, the actual voicing of this individual opinion is not a ‘right' everywhere.

While most in ‘the west' can feel they have a right to voice and have any opinion they want, in many places around the world the verbalization of belief that is contradictory to the popular opinion or out of line with the established government or religion can lead to imprisonment and/or death.

Is my opponent implying that in places without freedom of speech and a right to voice ones opinion, that the people who dwell there, have an opinion that is not equal to a person who does? Or is the ‘right' to voice ones opinion not pertinent in establishing the equality of all opinions?

"In the past there have been some scientific opinions that were laughed at and then proven correct"

This is an excellent point by my opponent. It is certainly true that in the history of society there have been instances where established belief has been disproved by scientific process and ultimately, empirical evidence.

Would my opponent consider the opinions of a member of the clergy and an astronomer, equal, should they be asked, is the earth flat?

"This shows how we must not judge opinions in this manner because one day they may be proven correct."

My opponent is correct that we should not rush to dismiss any opinion. However every opinion should be taken in context and not be thought meritorious, simply by being associated with the establishment, popular opinion or even minority opinion.

The question ultimately becomes, does this person or group of people know what they are talking about? Are they trained and educated enough to posit anything regarding this topic? And what do they have to gain by pushing such a belief?

In our current era it is simple enough to find the *credible* opinions by doing a Google search or even opening up a phone book.

If I'm building a bridge, the opinion of an engineer is going to be of greatest value.

Investing in my retirement? I'll find a financial planner.

Baby mama drama? I'll find a travel agent.

Fixing my brain? I'll find a neurologist.

Got a gory scene in a car in need of cleaning before the wife gets home tired from the graveyard shift at the hospital? I'm calling the wolf.[1]

These are people whose opinion are in fact not equal to all other opinions, and even within their own field may have individuals whose opinion is undeniably more valuable than theirs.

In this age of specialization there is no excuse not to find an opinion that is specific to that field or issue in order to maximize the potential for a gainful result. In fact, it is specifically because such specialization exists that all opinions are not equal.

It is a given that anyone educated in a specific field should garner special respect towards their opinion on that topic. Yet, this issue goes further than just education.

My opponent has stated that she believes that all opinions are equal, and while the ability to voice opinions may not be crucial to my opponents argument, it's important to point out that the ‘equality of value' regarding opinions based on education, is at least more humane than where it will be evaluated implicitly upon factors such as, gender, religion, family, and race. Outright dismissing from entire societies, opinions from anything not directly associated with the mainstream. Some form of this naturally exists everywhere.

Therefore I believe that it is actually crucial for society to look towards education as an inevitable lesser evil in regards to their desire to ascribe an initial credibility, and specifically as a manner in which to discriminate properly.

It is human nature to want to believe something that reinforces a viewpoint we already have, and only if we think critically about the main points and discriminate against those who are not experts in which they speak, will we have a chance to dispose of propaganda and retain a semblance of genuine discourse in all fields, whether that be science, politics, religion, or any other.

Facts and truth can be distorted intentionally or through ignorance simply because not all opinions are equal.
My opponent appears to be a citizen of the U.S., and thus has the ultimate ability towards exercising her equal opinion. ‘The Vote' is the fundamental method by which the U.S. has defined itself as a free nation, with equality for all, and such and such.

Now that we know that not all opinions are equal, I must express some gratitude to those 50% of Americans who choose not to vote. Those that willfully do not take the time to vote in a statement that they do not believe their opinion is equal, that it is inferior, so much so that they feel it is not worth even expressing.

My opponent must concede therefore that through some level of disenfranchisement, lack of education, or apathy (or other) that these very people whose opinions she declares are equal, do not agree, as reflected by their actions.

My opponent and I agree that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. I believe my opponent and I agree that everyone should be able to voice whatever opinion they want as well.

But my opponent and I disagree whether all opinions are equal.

And so I ask my opponent, should you require a medical opinion that could save someone's life, would you not discriminate against an opinion that was not credible? Should you not ascribe higher value to the opinions of a doctor?

Once again I wish to thank my opponent for this debate. I look forward to her response.

Con.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
debate250

Pro

As to my opponents first point about having the right to voice one's opinion is completely irrelevant to the validity of the opinion. Whether you hold an opinion privately or publicly doesn't matter, and in a country where people aren't allowed to express their opinions people could have great opinions but just not be able to display them. An example of this is World War Two Hitler committed genocide against Jews. Does this mean that Jews have less valid opinions simply because they weren't allowed to speak them? Another example is women's right before women had equal rights they were considered inferior. Does this mean that women didn't have equal opinions to men? The fact of whether a person is allowed to express an opinion doesn't matter as they could still hold that belief, and it could be completely valid.
Secondly as to experience, I believe that people with less experience could hold at least as good ideas or opinions. They need to collaborate with the people who have experience to make the best idea possible. Where would society be today without Cultural Diffusion. If people didn't collaborate on ideas society wouldn't be doing nearly as well. Someone may be inexperienced and have a great idea which they could share. Even if an idea is considered invalid at first there may be a different side to it which is valid. If everyone had the same opinion then there would be no culture or diversity in ideas. What would the world be like if we said a religion was invalid like Hitler did and extinguished that religion? The world wouldn't be nearly as diverse and would be a less good place to live in. Someone could have a brilliant medical idea that a doctor had never thought of. Albert Einstein didn't receive much education. However is my opponent implying that Einstein's opinions were less valid because he didn't receive that formal education? If education were all that mattered, Einstein's opinions wouldn't have been considered valuable when they actually changed the way we think about physics today.
Finally let's use someone saying the earth is flat as our example. Let's say someone said that even though it is commonly considered by society that the earth is round. That opinion is still valid and important. Ideas that are different to what the main society thinks are essential. In this example it should still be considered as it helps create diversity which can change other opinions in the future and help forward our society as a whole. Albert Einstein, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates were all thinkers who thought differently to the rest of society. These people took risks and tried something new to help improve society. If they had been disregarded because of what the rest of society thought, then we would be in a much worse position today. Every opinion must closely be considered. Even if it is not commonly accepted by society, there is still a chance that there may be some element of truth. Even if there is a well known fact, different opinions help create diversity, and we need reconsider the fact because there may be an element of truth which is why every opinion is equal and no opinions can be ignored.
Overall all opinions are equal and need to be considered. Education didn't matter with Einstein. What society thought didn't effect many of the most successful people of today. Another example of were education didn't matter was Winston Churchill for one of the best Prime Ministers ever, and he did terribly at school. He guided the people through one of the toughest times in history, and his education didn't matter as he had a completely valid and essential opinion. The most educated people aren't always the best choices as leaders, and sometimes the uneducated can have equal opinions to the most educated people. Overall all opinions should be considered equal, and all of the opinions matter. The following quote shows how opinions are important and how they can help each other. This quote shows how by collaborating and hearing others opinions and talking about opinions can help advance society. "For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise" (Benjamin Franklin). Overall all opinions are equal, and a variety of opinions is an essential part of our society.
airmax1227

Con

Once again I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

I would like to reiterate my position that all opinions not equal and society in general has a responsibility to discriminate against opinions that are in fact, inferior.

The ONLY method of this discrimination MUST be based on education (including informal education, or experience etc.)

My first argument was in regards to whether or not the ability to freely share an opinion was relevant to the equality of opinions. The final sentence of that argument was a question of whether or not my opponent considered ‘freedom of speech' relevant to opinion equality. My opponent's answer is, no. Respecting that answer, I will drop my opening argument. I will however speak to my opponents opening rebuttal later this round.

Therefore, my opponent needs to explain why a ‘right' to an opinion, makes any other opinions equal. A right to own a weapon doesn't make all weapons equal. A right to assemble doesn't make all assemblies equal.

My opponent's second rebuttal is with regards to experience.

She states:

"I believe that people with less experience could hold at least as good ideas or opinions"
This could certainly be true, but all things being equal, would my opponent not take the opinion of the person with more experience?

My opponent then contradicts her own resolution by stating:

"They need to collaborate with the people who have experience to make the best idea possible"
If all opinions are equal, why would people with more experience need to be involved to come up with the best idea possible?

Is my opponent conceding that experience does indeed lead to a more educated point of view, and therefore an opinion of greater value?

My opponent uses Einstein as an example of someone who was uneducated, and therefore his opinions were considered of lesser value.

I'd like to explore this argument in more depth, not only because I think my opponent is wrong in associating her argument with Einstein, but because of the irony of using Jews in her first rebuttal, yet failing to realize some of the same social conditions leading to the dismissal of Einstein's theories, had little to nothing to do with his education.

My opponent points out by using the Third Reich's dehumanization of Jews that the inability to state an opinion, does not invalidate an opinion, and on that, we agree.

But that society did not feel that way, the Jews at the time were considered subhuman and their opinions were irrelevant to the society that would persecute them. Does this make their actual opinions lesser than anyone else's point of view? No. It simply means that the society they lived within did not care what they had to say. This is part of my main point, because it is entirely independent of their education, as many Jews at the time had been assimilated into the culture and were often well educated.

Instead this reflects some level of societal feeling that the Jews were a parasite worth removing. The idea of listening to their opinions would have been similar to asking a rat. Who would even entertain the idea of asking a rat its opinion? Even if this rat was a super educated circus rat. The idea is clearly ridiculous.

My opponent says that Einstein was uneducated so his ideas were dismissed. I contend that Einstein theories were rejected for numerous reasons, most of which had nothing to do with education.

Many scientists were right to be critical of Einstein's theories, as with all science, it needs to be looked at skeptically until proven. However, much of the criticism of Einstein's Theory of Relativity had little to do with science, nor his education.

Some of it was political…

"…Nationalistically motivated criticisms of relativity and modern physics"
"Pierre Duhem regarded relativity as the product of the "too formal and abstract" German spirit, which was in conflict with the "common sense"."
"Soviet union and China…rejected the theory not because of factual objections, but ideologically motivated as the product of western decadence"

Some of it was prejudice…

"…In Germany it was the Jewish ancestry of relativity proponents such as Einstein, Minkowski, Born, which made them targets of racist critics"
"Paul Weyland was a known nationalistic agitator who arranged the first public meeting against relativity in Berlin in 1919"
"Theodor Fritsch emphasized the alleged negative consequences of the "Jewish spirit" within relativity"
"Gehrcke's book on "The mass suggestion of relativity theory" (1924)….was praised by the far-right press as describing an alleged typical Jewish behavior."
"Philipp Lenard in 1922 spoke about the "foreign spirit" as the foundation of relativity, and afterward he joined the Nazi party in 1924"
--[1][2]

…Very little of it was education.

While much of the scientific criticisms of Einstein's theories are ‘valid', this episode shows us that had the claims against Einstein been specifically about his education, the attempts to delegitimize those theories would not have become so absurd.

My opponent asks:

"…is my opponent implying that Einstein's opinions were less valid because he didn't receive that formal education?"

Einstein did receive that formal education, as he earned a degree in physics from ETH in 1900. [3]
…Showing that whatever was making his opinion ‘less valid' had little to do with education.

My opponent concludes her second argument with the following:

"If education were all that mattered, Einstein's opinions wouldn't have been considered valuable when they actually changed the way we think about physics today."

I contend that if education were all that mattered, Einstein's opinions would have been accepted much earlier. I believe I have proven that.

In my opponents third rebuttal she continues to use the ‘Earth is flat' example I brought up in the first round. Though she doesn't answer the question I asked using that example, she states the following:

"Let's say someone said [the earth is flat] even though it is commonly considered by society that the earth is round. That opinion is still valid and important"

I think it would be important to look at the credentials (education) of any such individual making such a claim. If they weren't some type of scientist I believe most would reasonably dismiss all of what this person had to say on the subject.

My opponent continues:

"Even if it is not commonly accepted by society, there is still a chance that there may be some element of truth."

My opponent and I completely agree on this. Such is the reason that freedom of speech is so important for all societies, not because all opinions are equal, but because the most important opinions are often unpopular opinions, and yet they still may be educated opinions.

My opponent concludes in reiterating the importance of listening to all opinions and treating all opinions as equal, in an effort to be sure to allow all opinions to affect society in as positive a way as possible. My opponent and I agree on this generally, however, it is not because all opinions are equal. It is simply because the only way that the educated can be sure of their ‘right' to their opinion, is if everyone is assured of their ‘right' to their opinion. This creates the ‘variety' of opinion my opponent makes focal in her argument, regardless of the opinions ‘value'.

To reiterate: Not all opinions are equal, and discriminating against opinions solely on the basis of education is beneficial to society. Other opinions based on life experience should not be immediately dismissed, but life experience does not validate one's opinion on advanced physics, and is therefore, not equal.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.nobelprize.org...
[3] http://www.history-timelines.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
debate250

Pro

I'd agree with my oponent that you need some education or experience to form an opinion. What my oponent has failed to understand is that everyone has had some kind of education or expeience. Different people have different experiences which is why each opinion must be considered, and every opinion is equal. Because of the variety of education and experience in our society that makes evey opinion essential. We need that diversity as a society to help everyone progress. This diversity is definitely beneficial to our society, and opinions are one of the most important areas in which we need that diversity. Overall I'd agree with my opponent that some expeience is needed, but that is something that everyone has, and because of that variety, it helps benifit our society as a whole.
Secondly having a right to an opinion does make all opinions equal. Because of the fact that everyone has opinions it makes them equal because like I said above everyone has had different experiences in their life.If someone is poor and has never had a good education they might have had a valuable experience on the streets which is just as good as somone's opinion who has gone to a great university. Therefore, all opinions are equal because of the variety of opinions through having different education and experiences which makes anyone who has an opinion has an equal opinion to anyone else.
Thirdly I wouldn't take the opinion of the person who has more experience. If somebody had had a heart attack in the past,and I told them my experience and symptoms they might diagnose it,but a doctor might not. Therefore, the person with more experience doesn't have better opinions.
Also my point with the collaboration was not that the person with more experience had better opinions. My point was that they needed to work toghether in order to produce a better result. The person with less experience needs the person with more experience simply because they can help each other. Maybe the person with less experience has an amzing idea,but just doesn't have the expeience to execute it. Overall my opponent misunderstood my point about collaboration,and it was simply to show how all opinions are equal and how two opinions can help each other to progress our society.
Finally the point about Einstein is that education didn' matter. He may have gotten a degree in the end,but he didn' do well with education in the beginning. My opponent even admitted that it had very little to do with his education as to whether his opinions were accepted. It doesn't matter if they weren't accepted early,it just matters that they were accepted in the end. Therefore,Einstein showed that education doesn' matter.
Overall there are some major flaws in my opponent's argument, and I still believe that all opinions are equal.
airmax1227

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate, as it has been a genuinely interesting experience.

My opponent's opening argument:

--"What my oponent has failed to understand is that everyone has had some kind of education or expeience."--
Not only do I understand this, it is paramount to the overall point I am trying to make. The varying degrees of education and experience of an individual, is exactly what justifies being critical of their opinion and ascribing a value to it.
--"Different people have different experiences which is why each opinion must be considered, and every opinion is equal"--
My opponent is correct that because opinions are varied due to the many experiences of others that society should consider them all. However the former part of the sentence doesn't allow the latter to follow.
Knowing every opinion should be considered doesn't mean they are all equal. It simply means that no society should silence them.

My opponent concludes his first argument saying that believing all opinions are equal facilitates diversity of opinion thus creating a better society.

My opponent and I agree that diversity of opinion is important for society. As I said just above though, freedom of speech creates this diversity, and allows us to freely gauge and evaluate any opinion without the fear that there are opinions we aren't privy too.

In my opponent's second argument he once again brings up his first argument.
--"Secondly having a right to an opinion does make all opinions equal"--
I am now forced to ask my opponent once again, does the lack of the ‘right' to an opinion make it unequal? As we know there are places where an opinion is not a ‘right'. The ‘right' to an opinion, is simply another way of saying ‘freedom of speech'.

My opponent attempts to explain why a ‘right' to an opinion makes all opinions equal:
--"Because of the fact that everyone has opinions it makes them equal because like I said above everyone has had different experiences in their life"—
My opponent follows this by contrasting the experiences of a university student and someone with ‘street smarts'.
The fact that my opponent is differentiating between the types of experiences makes it seem as though he believes that different experiences lead to a preference of opinion, and thus a difference in value.
We would agree on this then as I would certainly require the advice of the ‘street smart' individual over the ‘university student' if I should walk out my front door.
Thus both my opponent and I apparently agree that placing a value on an opinion is a prudent thing to do.

My opponent's third argument is a concession in regards to experience.
My opponent begins:
--"Thirdly I wouldn't take the opinion of the person who has more experience"--
However, he then follows by saying he would specifically take the advice of someone with experience:

--"If somebody had had a heart attack in the past,and I told them my experience and symptoms they might diagnose it,but a doctor might not"--
I will concede to my opponent that a doctor might be wrong. But ultimately what my opponent is saying here is that he prefers the opinion of someone with experience, the experience of having a heart attack. Thus placing a higher value on their opinion.

My opponent concludes:
--"Therefore, the person with more experience doesn't have better opinions"--
I believe what has been established is that my opponent prefers an opinion from experience rather than from expertise. Clearly showing that either experience or education can be used to properly gauge the value of all opinions.

My opponent concludes by continuing the argument regarding Einstein.
My opponent continues to make the case that we shouldn't dismiss people who aren't educated because they might be correct in the end. He uses Einstein as an example of this.
He states:
--"He may have gotten a degree in the end,but he didn' do well with education in the beginning"—
Einstein may be notorious for his educational failings, (had to drop out of high school, failed entrance exam to school of choice) it had little bearing on the criticism his theories faced.

--"My opponent even admitted that it had very little to do with his education as to whether his opinions were accepted"--
I did not in fact admit to this. I submitted that his education had very little to do with why his opinions were **rejected**. If Einstein were uneducated it would be reasonable to be critical of, and even reject, his theories.
My opponent concludes:

--"Therefore,Einstein showed that education doesn' matter."--
My opponent and I agree with this statement, it does not however advance his argument. It is a shame that in the case of Einstein, education doesn't matter, for if it did the world would be a lot better off.

Instead what seemed to matter, and the reason for criticism, has nothing to do with education, and rather things that have nothing to do with Einstein's credibility as a scientist.

If anything, Einstein shows that education does matter, and that his opinions were all the more valuable (and credible) because of it.

My opponent makes the case that the opinion of the uneducated must be valued the same as the educated, and points to Einstein as an example of the uneducated opinion becoming the mainstream one.
I emphatically challenge my opponent to show that there was indeed actual criticism of Einstein that was directed at his education, and not simply a ruse to legitimize prejudice.

I would like to present some example of that evidence here.

A simple Google search of ‘einstein lack of education' reveals the following FIRST result:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au... [1]

I am making no judgment of the author nor to quality of the website presenting this. I will merely share portions of it as to allow my opponent and voters to judge for themselves as to the ‘value' of this opinion.

"Albert Einstein: Was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?":
"Einstein was an inept and moronic person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces"
"He contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL"
"He stole the ideas of others, and the Jew-controlled media made him a 'hero.'"
"Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story"
"Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich"

"This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam"
(This is verifiably untrue. Though Einstein did fail the exam "he got exceptional marks in mathematics and physics") (Thus value/credibility of this opinion is reasonably in doubt) [2][3]

"Because of this push by the Jewish media, 1922, Einstein received the Nobel prize…"
"He immediately began his work as a tool for World Zionism"
"His death was just the beginning of his usage and exploitation by World Jewry."
"The Jewish-controlled media continued to promote the myth of this Super-Jew"
"Jews cannot allow the due credit to go to William Shockley because he spent the majority of his scientific career demonstrating the genetic and mental inferiority of non-whites and arguing for their sterilization."
"The Jews could not let any of the truly great geniuses of our time be recognized"
And it goes on…

Needless to say, I believe some opinions are more valuable than others. Without even knowing anything about the author, I can tell his opinion is worth being critical of with regards to this subject.
Once again I challenge my opponent to provide legitimate criticism of Einstein's education.

Finally, I would like to apologize to my opponent as I have become aware that in the previous two rounds I had been mistakenly referring to him as female. I accept any loss of conduct points should the voters find it necessary.

[1] http://www.biblebelievers.org.au...
[2] Highfield, Roger; Carter, Paul (1993), The Private Lives of Albert Einstein, London: Faber and Faber, p. 21, ISBN 0-571-17170-2
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
debate250

Pro

Firstly I'd like to ask my opponent why we should consider each opinion carefully if there is indeed no element of equality to all opinions. If we immediately rated opinions then it wouldn't make sense to consider every possibility. Only if all opinions are equal would it make sense to consider them carefully each one on the same level of importance as the other. My opponent's argument therefore doesn't make sense in that aspect, and education and experience which everyone does have does make all opinions equal and necessary for consideration.
Secondly, my opponent admits that the diversity of opinions is good. However what my opponent doesn't understand is the consequences of evaluating opinions. If we evaluate opinions, the diversity goes. For instance if we evaluated religions like Hitler did in World War Two with the Jews there would be less religions and less diversity as a natural consequence of evaluating these opinions as a society. This is why all opinions are equal and must remain equal in order to have a varied and diverse society.
Thirdly, I never agreed that placing a value on an opinion was prudent. Different people will have different types of opinions. For example, if they are never asked, most people in safe communities wouldn't even be thinking about what to do if they got attacked because it isn't necessary in their daily lives. However, someone who lives in an unsafe community probably does think about what to do in that situation. Therefore, some people may not even have opinions on certain issues. If someone in a safe community was asked, there knowledge would still be just as valuable as the person in the unsafe community. The person in the safe community would probably have a logical answer that may be helpful. However, the person in the unsafe community may have a practical answer. Therefore, we probably need to combine these to forward our thinking overall which is why both of these opinions are equal.
I am not placing a higher value on the opinion of the victim of the heart attack when I made that argument. I was simply saying that education doesn't contribute to a better opinion. I don't prefer the opinion of one or the other because it would probably be best to get both. The victim probably has no idea of how to cure the heart attack or complete the operation while the doctor does. The previous victim also doesn't know the cause of the heart attack which the doctor may. The previous victim may be quicker at telling what it is though. Overall both opinions are necessary because both are essential to saving the person's life. Therefore, both opinions are equal, and it is necessary to have a variety of opinions; my opponent's argument there doesn't prove that all opinions are not equal.
Thirdly, as I said previously, everyone has either education or experience which verifies their opinion and makes it equal to all other opinions. Therefore, all opinions are essential for our society. Even on a topic that someone hasn't heard much about, maybe they have a great imagination and a great idea about that topic helping society as a whole. Overall, education and expertise are not necessary to have an opinion equal to everybody else's.
My point with Einstein's was not that people criticize his education. People don't have to be critical of Einstein's education to help prove my point. The fact is that Einstein didn't receive the best education. Regardless of whether people criticized that or were fine with that doesn't matter. My point is that even though Einstein didn't get the best education, his views were very important to most people in our society despite the people that did criticize him. Overall, Einstein is an example of where education didn't matter. Whether people criticize that or not, Einstein still struggled with education, yet he contributed a lot to our society, and therefore, my opponent's original argument about needing education doesn't work.
Overall, I believe there are many problems with my opponent's argument as I have pointed out. I still believe that all opinions are equal, help to create diversity in our society, and are extremely important to all of us. There are problems when society ranks opinions when opinions shouldn't be ranked as what people think is completely equal. Overall all opinions are equal, and the equality of opinions really helps our society as a whole, and all opinions are necessary as well as equal.
airmax1227

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent's opening:
--"Firstly I'd like to ask my opponent why we should consider each opinion carefully if there is indeed no element of equality to all opinions."—
Only where variance exists must an evaluation be made.

--"If we immediately rated opinions then it wouldn't make sense to consider every possibility."—
We can only evaluate opinions by comparing them to others.

--"Only if all opinions are equal would it make sense to consider them carefully each one on the same level of importance as the other."—
To the contrary, if all athletes were equal, none would ever need to be evaluated.

--"My opponent's argument therefore doesn't make sense in that aspect, and education and experience which everyone does have does make all opinions equal and necessary for consideration."—

My opponent ultimately argues that only if every opinion is equal, is it necessary to ever evaluate them, thus making my argument senseless.

Let's take a look at this pseudo-mathematically:

In my opponent's model, all opinions are equal,

(Model Pro)
Opinion A = 1
Opinion B = 1
Opinion C = 1

My opponent argues that only if all opinions are equal must they ever be evaluated.

(Model Con)
Opinion A = X
Opinion B = Y
Opinion C = Z

I argue that only if opinions are unequal must they be evaluated.

We can see from the two models that there is only one model that presents any reason for evaluation at all, and only by evaluating Opinion's A, B, or C, in Model Con, can we even begin to compare them and assign values to X, Y, or Z.
In Model Pro we see that no evaluation is required as taking the first opinion will invariably be equal to any following opinions, making them unnecessary to consider.

Thus only when all opinions are –not- equal, must we carefully evaluate them.

My opponent's second argument:
--"If we evaluate opinions, the diversity goes"—
If we do not evaluate all opinions, the diversity serves no purpose.

--"if we evaluated religions like Hitler did in World War Two with the Jews there would be less religions and less diversity as a natural consequence of evaluating these opinions as a society"—

It's possible that this debate focuses too much on Jews. However I'll reply to this by saying that the opinions of racists, sexists and prejudice individuals are not equal to opinions of tolerance and equality. These (positive) opinions have a greater positive impact on society throughout our history.

I believe the rest of my opponent's final arguments have been addressed in the previous rounds.

Society should consider all opinions equally, in an effort to evaluate which opinion is best, thus the resolution is negated, as not all opinions are equal.

Vote Con.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and wish my opponent well in all his future debates and endeavors.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NoN0 5 years ago
NoN0
Train feed
Posted by debate250 5 years ago
debate250
Even in opinions such as those, they are equal on the level of opinions as positive opinions. All of those are discriminatory opinions, and even though they are equal, I'm not saying that we should all have them as a society. They are equal opinions to kindness because they are just as important. They harm many people, but because someone has that opinion, they have the right to express it, and therefore, it is equal. It deserves equal consideration to kindness even though in the end of that consideration all of those should be ignored. Discriminatory opinions still provide an equal amount of benefit to society simply by making us consider certain issues. They are equal, and they need to be considered. They provide benefit because as opinions they're as important as any other opinion. Also, that person is entitled to their opinion, and it creates diversity in what people think. It is okay for them to have that opinion unless it translates into actions. What I and most of the rest of society believe is against all of those, but we still need to consider them equal opinions to our own. Overall discriminatory opinions benefit society by making us consider certain issues, and they also provide diversity in opinions.
Posted by Priceless29 5 years ago
Priceless29
Debate250, thanks for clarifying your response. I would agree that in terms of benefit most opinions can be equal. However I would ask you clarify this whenever you say that all opinions are equal many people, including myself, think that you mean that all opinions are of equal truth. But tell me will you if an opinion such as that racism or xenophobia or anti-semitism has had the same amount of benefit as an idea of let's say kindness.
Posted by debate250 5 years ago
debate250
Yes, I would define equality of opinions as every opinion benefits the individual or the group of people that it is given to the same amount. I am saying that all opinions give equal amounts of benefits which is not saying that all opinions are true. Each opinion can help forward the society in some way even if it is not commonly considered to be true. For instance if one doctor diagnoses an illness as a heart attack, but the other doctor diagnoses it as a lung problem. Let's say the doctor who said it was a heart attack was correct. The doctor who diagnosed it as a lung problem still helped the person because maybe there was a problem along with the heart attack in their lungs. Even without any element of truth the doctor who diagnosed the illness as a lung problem helped to create diversity in opinion. The doctor who diagnosed the problem as a heart attack could help the doctor who diagnosed it as a lung problem, and in the end through that collaboration both could benefit. The doctor who diagnosed it as a lung problem has an opinion equal to the one diagnosing it as a heart attack because it's just as good an opinion as it's worthwhile and important that the doctor believes that because the opinion as an opinion is just as good because it's bad to be judgemental of opinions as a society and to be open to all possibilities even if they do turn out being considered incorrect by most of society the opinions are still worthwhile. Overall even in facts all opinions are still equal to each other.
Posted by Priceless29 5 years ago
Priceless29
Are you talking about equality in terms of amount it benefits society? You seem to keep saying that opinions can be equal because a new opinion can benefit society by making it think differently. However, I would argue that by saying that all opinions are equal you are actually saying that all opinions are equally "true" which is false. There are certain things that can be proven to be true.
Posted by debate250 5 years ago
debate250
No if I said that you don't exist that is still equal to you saying that you exist. It may not be what society commonly thinks, but it is still an opinion, and I believe all opinions are important. It is equal as an opinion, and it still contributes something. There is always some element which is important. For instance it could make the question what is existence classified as. Maybe some day in the future we'll discover that there are parallel universes with multiply ones of us in it. Now there is some element of truth in saying that we don't exist then as that is not how must people consider existence. Let's say that wasn't even the case. Let's say that 200 years into the future it is proven that parallel universes are fake, and existence is exactly as we know it today. The opinion was still equal as an opinion. If I say that you definitely don't exist, I've stated an opinion that is not accepted by society, but it is still equal to yours. It may help raise questions which as my debate mentions with cultural diversity and collaboration helping forward society, it may help to form new opinions. It can create a little bit of difference. To say that you didn't exist I'd have to have a reason why. Even if I didn't (which would be impossible) it can still be considered as something different, and it can be considered as helping to think differently which could potentially benefit society which means that mine is equal to everyone else's. It is equal simply because I have it as an opinion, and it creates a change of ideas. Because of the diversity and the separation from what everybody else thinks it is still important that I am thinking that. It helps us question which has gotten us far in the past. It's as important as saying that you exist because of how unique it is, and every opinion should be considered as a possibility. Therefore, all opinions are still equal even in objects that are seemingly facts because there is still a possibility of an element of truth.
Posted by Priceless29 5 years ago
Priceless29
debate250, there is a large difference between being open-minded about new ideas and concepts and stating that all opinions are equal. If I said to you that I exist and prove it using Descartes proof of existence then you saying that I don't exist that would not be equal opinions. I can prove my without a doubt that "I" exist meanwhile you can not disprove my existence. The reason why ideas change and why values change is because opinions are unequal.
Posted by Priceless29 5 years ago
Priceless29
Loved the pulp fiction reference airmax
Posted by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
My opponent is apparently not female... my mistake.
Posted by debate250 5 years ago
debate250
Con's opinion is equal to mine. The voting is just to show which opinion is more accepted not which opinion is more equal. You can still vote Pro because it doesn't show who has the better opinion; it simply shows who conducted their opinion better. It's not my opinion versus their opinion to see who's is better; instead it's to see who convinced the public more. The public could like one argument more than the other because of the way it's written, but as an opinion, both are still valid and equal. Also this site is a great example of how equal opinions can help to forward thinking. At the end of the debate I might be able to see a different view and so might they. Through different opinions each of them equal it helps to change both of our thinking.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
debate250airmax1227Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This argument is self defeating. If Pro is correct and all opinions are equal... then the fact that my opinion is that not all opinions are equal, is equal to the opinion that all are equal. It would be Pro's burden to overcome this issue, and they did not.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
debate250airmax1227Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that all opinions should be valued and that each opinion is important. He does not however argue that all opinions are equal, failing to uphold his BoP. Con would have benefited tremendously by sticking to his arguments and forcing pro to refute or acknowledge them. Although he allowed Pro to dictate the discourse of the debate, he was still able to refute his arguments convincingly by showing the difference in values of opinions. Well that's my opinion, whatever it's worth.
Vote Placed by curious18 5 years ago
curious18
debate250airmax1227Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: debate250 was not able to give any reason that airmax1227 was not able to refute. I also didn't like debate250's block of texts and lack of links.