Respect should be earned
Debate Rounds (4)
I disagree that this should be the standard and will argue that it shouldn't.
respect-to show consideration for; treat courteously or kindly.
Should we respect the feelings of those who have inflicted harm on others for no good cause?
If a Scientist and someone who has almost no scientific knowledge opinions on a very pressing topic be held in the same regard?
If someone is an expert in a field their voice should be the first one heard, not someone who has no experience in it
people should not have to pretend to like everyone they meet, because a lot of people don't deserve respect.
The burden of proof is shared in this debate. I would like to go back to the definition of respect in this round. The definition of respect is not, looking up to someone, or being overly nice to them. Its simply giving every person the common courtesy they deserve.
The paradigm my opponent uses is destructive and circular because it sets up a role where others must first be kind to you, yet if they believe your same standard then you have to be nice to them first. This means no one ends up getting respect. I believe everyone deserves to be treated equally and with a basic level of respect. If a person disrespects you that is a different story.
A snippet of a post by child of a NPD mother states:
Like many abused kids, as a child I was not allowed to express anger, or even to give any outward appearance that I felt it.
This meant her mother abused her, and if she showed anger about the “badness” of her mother’s abuse, she was seen as “bad”. Does that mean she is truly bad?
In order to become “good”, we need to do “bad”. By doing “bad” does not mean we are “bad” or “evil”. Everyone changes. A “good” person may change to bad due to bad influences, but a bad person can change to good by good influences.
So by disrespecting someone who’s bad…you’re not exactly helping them to become “good” are you? Plus, you’re not even doing an act a “good” person would do as you’re spreading that belief that it’s alright to disrespect the “bad” and let them stay “bad” forever. It is difficult for a bad to become “good” if they do not get help and are always pushed aside, their beliefs will turn into truth for them.
Is it hard to respect someone? Is it hard to disrespect someone? They are equal in “hard”, it is only in your mind that one is harder because it has not been attempted for long periods of time. Utopia is only an excuse not to respect someone, because it is used as a “if”. There’s not “ifs” in respect, it’s not I will do it if, I will do that if, you just do it because if you don’t, that “if” will never occur and you’ll never learn to respect others freely.
The most basic respect does not require trust, it is not personal respect.
Basic respect - Have due regard for (someone"s feelings, wishes, or rights)
Personal respect - A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
Trust must be earnt and that can lead to respect, however, you do not need to trust someone to respect someone. You may not trust the media, but by respecting the media, you don’t insult the one who did it and spread rumours in order to put the media down. You may criticize them, you may disagree with them and tell others to do so, but you do not do so in a threatening manner and make it a personal offence to the media staff.
To conclude the debate, I would like to quote something from Narcissist’s child.
“Curiously, while we take the position that strangers must earn our respect, we fully expect those strangers to treat us with the respect and courtesy we have made no effort to “earn” from them. It’s a one-way street in our minds—others should treat us with respect but they must earn ours—and we don’t even realize it!
If you take the time to really think about it, you have to come to the conclusion that respect simply cannot be earned. No one person is sufficiently intuitive and simultaneously fluid of personality that they can divine and appropriately react to an infinite, and infinitely changing, set of demands. You cannot please all of the people all of the time—and when it comes to earning respect, you cannot even know what all of the people think you need to do.
If you want to be respected, there is a simple way to achieve that: respect others. Respect their feelings, their rights, their existence. Give them respect as a matter of course and only withhold it when a specific person has done a specific thing that is worthy of withdrawing it. Set the bar high—determine that taking your respect away from a person is a serious thing, not to be taken lightly or in response to something small, like disagreeing with you politically. In fact, to my way of thinking, it is only demonstrating an ingrained lack of respect for others that warrants the withdrawal of my respect.
You might consider this the next time you think another person should earn your respect rather than you giving it freely and giving him a chance to earn your disrespect instead.”
"Respect" according to Merriam-Webster is "a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc"
So with this you are implying that we should admire everything and everyone, regardless of what they do or say, Politeness is something that everyone should be by default, not polite
Nope. Judges you can entirely throw PRO's definition in the trash can. He has accepted my definition by accepting the round, which includes politness and anything partaining to basic respect. No where do I say we should admire everyone. My definition stands, his isn't allowed, meaning he has presented litterally no arguments against my case thus far. This means I am upholding my BOP to show why we shoud all be given basic respect, while my opponent hasn't fullfilled his to show people should have to earn basic respect.
So far pro loses automatically. My opponent's last chance to argue is next round.
This round ends very simply. Here's the story.
I started a debate that respect should be earner, where respect means common courtesy, politness and care for a person's basic rights and value as a person. My oppenent neglected to read littelly the second of only two lines in the first round, where I define it as such. Pro instead accepts the debate with a different definition of respect which he posted the round before last and said we are actually debating that definition. Thing is, he already accepted my definition by joining this debate.
Furthermore, the definition shift is my opponent's Only argument, being that this is now void, my arguments go utterly unrefuted and my burden of proof is fulfilled, meanwhile Pro fails to justify that we should make people earn what I call basic respect.
There is only one logical choice here, vote con.
Don't vote for someone who makes up definitions for his own Agenda, Vote Pro
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped all of Con's arguments, and never refuted a single one. Instead they decided to argue about the definition, Pro was trying to use their own definition, however they were not allowed to do this, because Con had already provided a definition of "respect" in the first round, and by accepting the debate Pro accepted that definition, therefore Con's definition is the one that will be used. Con presented interesting arguments, such as how the "earn respect" system that Pro was talking about leads to no one being respected, because they all believe that someone should respect them before they do the same. Con already won the debate here, because they showed the fault in a "respect should be earned" system, and Pro never refuted this, or any other arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.