You can judge me but I can't judge you
Debate Rounds (2)
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!
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months 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:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.
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.