The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

All opinions ought to be heard and understood, no matter how much you dislike them.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ChargingBadger has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 353 times Debate No: 97715
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Three rounds. First is for making your argument, no rebuttals. Second is for rebuttals. Third is for conclusions.

I will be arguing for the giving credit to all opinions, no matter how disgusting, prejudiced, or fallacious you may think they are. My opponent will be arguing that some opinions do not deserve credence.

I am of the personal belief that even an argument you find morally or logically atrocious deserves credence. Even opinions that are threatening to other parties deserve to be listened to: how can one argue against Nazism without first understanding the argument it makes?

If, for example, one is homosexual and someone else posts something homophobic, the natural response would be to discredit or ignore that opinion. I am arguing to the contrary: the only way one can change these kinds of opinions is by understanding them. Even if you are a neonazi or something of that ilk, I think it is paramount that I understand your perspective, so that we may argue.


I want to begin by thanking the pro for creating this debate and I look forward to an interesting discussion.

Before I go into my arguments, I want to make it clear that I do not view this debate as being about freedom of speech in the legal sense. NEITHER side in this debate will argue that people should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, or that Neo-Nazi groups should be prohibited from holding demonstrations in a legal manner.

In this debate, I will argue that while people should strive to be open minded, there should be limits as to what opinions should be heard at the individual and institutional level. This is become giving them a platform gives them legitimacy which can be extremely dangerous.
In an academic context, opinions which contradict facts or have been previously discredited, should not be heard as they do not yield any benefit to the academic community or undermine the academic debate and discussion. Holocaust Deniers, conspiracy theorists and flat earth proponents are not given credence in the academic community as their claims are not based son evidence. Only when they present evidence to support their claims, are people taken seriously in the academic community.
Outside the academic field, granting groups like neo-nazis a platform and subsequently legitimacy, which history shows can lead to disasterous consequences.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
I only care about my own opinions.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.