The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

You can judge me but I can't judge you

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 418 times Debate No: 90501
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Rather than for or against, I would like to present this argument as a dialogue. I hope to get some contrasting thoughts on the matter if possible.

Do some individuals possess a greater capacity to judge than others? Do their judgments hold more weight, as it were? Certainly, America's judicial system is centered around the idea that a person can develop the capacity to cast more wise judgments than another, hence the Supreme Court.

If the ability to judge more correctly can be developed, does it follow that certain individuals have the right to judge me while I lack the right or ability to judge them? In other words, does a person's learning, critical thinking aptitude, and experience give them a greater right to judge than one who is deficient in such qualities?

This has lurked in the back of my mind for some time now. It's difficult for me to shake the idea that a well-founded critic merits more consideration. As a result, I tend to be over sensitive to others' opinions, particularly when they appear to possess a high degree of aptitude regarding logic and sheer content knowledge.

"Hater's gonna' hate," seems to be a common refute, but what if they are not "hating," but critiquing, and dismissal as "hate" is merely a self-serving tool to restore a sense of satisfaction? Perhaps ignoring their "judgment" is choosing ignorance.

I recognize that the argument is only moderately developed, but I would love to get some others' take on this. Thanks!


This is an interesting topic. First I'd like to quote a Japanese saying I recently read regarding experts" sometimes monkeys fall out of trees".

There are definitely people who have spent a considerable amount of time on a subject to a point where there judgement is sharper than others. However we're all human and subject to error. I believe it is difficult for any single person to know enough about anything to always have the correct or superior judgement. This is the reason science employs the peer review process. That's why there are trail by juries. Even with a lot of expertise and minds a consensus can be wrong. To some extent absolute discernment is illusive.

I'll expound more in the next round. Interesting topic though thanks.
Debate Round No. 1


I agree with what you said, that "Even with a lot of expertise and minds a consensus can be wrong." It brings to mind historical accounts where the majority of the best minds the world had to offer were wrong (i.e. - geocentrism, "the world is flat," etc.). While major advancements have been made in the last century and a half, it would seem reasonable to assume future generations will look back on us with awe at our overconfidence and lack of knowledge (consider our lack of understanding regarding dark matter and dark energy, or the brain).

This appeal to the past I think devalues majority opinions to an extent. Science is inherently inductive, which is an explicit admission toward inherent uncertainty. Nassim Taleb wrote an interesting book on this called "The Black Swan" in which he essentially asserted that control and predictability are illusions. All of this makes me feel somewhat better going about my day and not putting too much stock in others' opinions. If a slew of scientists can be wrong, perhaps my neighbor's judgments can be questioned, if not ignored.

Still, a recognition of this idea causes me to question my own judgments and opinions. If so many can be wrong, why not me? And ignoring others' judgments seems to be a stepping stone toward ignorance. I would hate to turn into an overconfident, introspection lacking, self-serving bias jerk off. Perhaps this fear is what drives me to an over-sensitivity regarding others' judgments and opinions. I fear they will be able to see something that I am unable to see. Why this is such an issue for me I'm not sure. Perhaps they are right and I accept it and move on. I guess there's a part of me that feels I may be living a lie, subject to delusions of perceptions not based in reality. Sort of like living in the Matrix or something. Thus I am always second guessing myself, always looking for where I may be wrong.

I kind of grafted in a new direction to the debate. However, I think the original question stands, who has the right to judge, and who is obliged to listen? I appreciate you taking on the topic. It's a little bit different, but very fascinating to me. Some other things to consider might be "elitism," "upper-class society," and "academia."


Youdontknowjeff forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Youdontknowjeff 2 years ago
Really this is the debate I got a vote on? This was hardly a debate to begin with. What a jerk.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.