opinions can be wrong
Debate Rounds (3)
Reject definitions that allow opinions to be unrelated to Qualia, because everything can be explained objectively were it not for the existence of Qualia.
My opponent has raised only one argument, and that is that opinions can contradict facts, thus being wrong. However, there are no opinions that can be objectively proven or disproven with facts because they are based on the subjective perception of the world. His example is not an opinion, because the size of something is based of objective measurements and not on Qualia. That person would have just stated a wrong fact, not a wrong opinion as Pro claims.
My argument is that no opinions can be wrong as the perceptions of the world that each person experiences cannot be compared to the experiences of other people. And definitely not in a way that allows one perception to be somehow more correct than another.
Conscious- aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. 
Con brings up Qualia. Qualia is a conscious experience , and an opinion is someones way of thinking therefore wouldn't a wrong opinion still be a conscious experience because they are aware of what they are thinking? Qualia then backfires on Con since an opinion is a person experience, but it is an awareness of their decision. It doesn't matter if someone knows a fact, if they say "In my opinion (Concluding that in their own thought) that Eggs are bigger than full-grown turkeys" they would be still be wrong because Facts> Opinions.
Con claims that no opinion that can be contradicted, this is wrong. As the definition of Opinion says, an opinion is a belief/judgement. My judgement on something is that a mouse is bigger than an Elephant, but my judgement is not correct. Therefore, my opinion is not correct. The definition of opinion disagrees with cons claim that "That person would have just stated a wrong fact, not a wrong opinion as con claims." According to Merriam-Webster an opinion does not have to be a fact, rather a belief of something. Anyone can believe anything, but not anything anyone beliefs is necessarily correct, if that makes sense.
Con claims that no opinion can be wrong because people experience things different. If no ones opinions could be compared to other people then election polls would not be accurate at all, and a lot of the time they are accurate. 
"But pollsters have found that the so-called "generic ballot test," which asks whether respondents intend to vote for the Republican or the Democratic candidate in their local race for the House, can provide an accurate estimate of the vote on which projections about party gains and losses in seats can be based." 
If what Con says were to be true, we would have no way of determining the political polls because everyone experiences things differently. Con claims that "one perception can not be more correct than another one." This is again, false. A opinion is a perception, yes, but just because someone seems one thing in a way doesn't mean it is correct. It's like looking at art: If I look at art one way and see a house then look at it from the side and see a big blob of paint, it is still a house even if you look at it differently.
Anyone can say anything is their "opinion," but that doesn't make it correct. You have the burden of proof to prove why opinions are always correct.
This part of my opponent's argument is flat out incorrect. Read the resolution again. All I need to do is to prove that opinions can't be wrong, not that they are always right. My position is that no opinion can be right or wrong, which negates the resolution.
-------Definition of Opinion-------
My opponent gives a Merriam-Websters definition that is suitable for everyday use. However, to be useful to our philosophical debate, it must be narrowed down. As I argued before, you should reject any definition that allows opinions to be unrelated to Qualia, which I will go over in the next point. The reason you should prefer my view on the definion of opinion over my opponent's, is because he dropped my argument about why alternate definitions don't work. And it would be unfair to present a new argument in the last round, so my opponent has no chance of winning the definition debate, which means that the debate must be evaluated under my definition.
Qualia only includes subjective perception, which means that opinions (as per my definition) cannot be about anything objective. If they are, opinion is a misnomer as it is not an opinion. Because of this, Qualia doesn't backfire on me at all.
Take Pro's faulty example. "A mouse is bigger than an elephant." This is not an opinion as it involves objective measurement. A person that states this is just stating an incorrect fact. A real opinion, like "My music sounds better than that crap," is an opinion because what sounds better is up to each person's subjective perception (Qualia). Real opinions cannot be contridicted, as it is just how a person percieves things.
I want to stress here that beliefs are not always opinions. There are facts out there, like "God exists" which pretty much no one knows for 100% certain whether it is true or false. That is not a opinion. It cant be a fact just because no one knows if it is true or not.
The presidential polls argument is nonsensical and does not link to his conclusion. Of course it works, because you are objectively counting subjective opinions, the same subjective opinions that is counted when people vote. I am just talking about comparing opinions in the sense that you can place one as right while another is wrong.
---------Perception of the Painted House---------
Sight is Qualia. The brain interprets signals in different ways, by recognizing objects. A house is an object that most people recognize. However, this, again, is Qualia. If a person has never seen a house before and doesn't recognize it, that doesn't mean her perception of it is wrong. What a house is is slightly different for everybody, and so its not like your eyes are malfunctioning if you don't see something that others do, or vise versa.
---------Why I have won this debate---------
My case: Opinions, which are descriptions of Qualia and the conclusions and comparisons drawn from them, cannot be right or wrong. Qualia are just subjective perceptions of the world, which is different for each person. This definition should be preferred because without Qualia, you can explain everything objectively and factually.
My opponents case: An opinion is a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something. The example "In my opinion Eggs are bigger than full-grown turkeys" and a bunch of others prove that opinions can be wrong.
My opponent loses because he dropped my argument as to why my definition should be preferred and did not present any reasons why we should accept his definition. Furthermore, it is obvious that under my definition, my opponent's examples are all either not really opinions or don't affirm the resolution.
The resolution is negated. Vote Con.
"Con brings up Qualia. Qualia is a conscious experience , and an opinion is someones way of thinking therefore wouldn't a wrong opinion still be a conscious experience because they are aware of what they are thinking? Qualia then backfires on Con since an opinion is a person experience, but it is an awareness of their decision. It doesn't matter if someone knows a fact, if they say "In my opinion (Concluding that in their own thought) that Eggs are bigger than full-grown turkeys" they would be still be wrong because Facts> Opinions."
Con claims that "A mouse is bigger than an elephant." is just stating an incorrect fact. Qualia fires back on con, Qualia is a state of consciousness.  Determining if something is bigger determines that the person is absolutely conscious, therefore would fall under Qualia proving my opponent wrong. Con claims that Qualia is a "real opinion" but fails to back up his information. Con has the burden of proof which he has failed to do so on the big claim.
Con claims that something like "God exists" is not an opinion, but clearly it is. Qualia backfires on Con once again with the fact that determining whether something has to do with consciousness. If you can not think for yourself there would be no debate on whether God exists and everyone would either agree with one side or the other.
Con claims that "Presidential polls argument is nonsensical." Someone voting is clearly subjective due to the fact that they, themselves, are voting for something and is using their opinions to decide who to vote for.
Con says the brain interprets signals in different ways, which is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean their opinion is right. If a mentally insane person says the sun is falling, his opinion is clearly wrong since we are all still here, alive. Con uses a house situation, everyone should see it the same way, one may not describe it as a house but the results should be similar.
Con claims, again, that I dropped their case, but as you can see by what I quoted that is not true. Con also claims that I have not presented any reasons why we should except my definitions. Con chose to ignore this entire paragraph:
"Con claims that no opinion that can be contradicted, this is wrong. As the definition of Opinion says, an opinion is a belief/judgement. My judgement on something is that a mouse is bigger than an Elephant, but my judgement is not correct. Therefore, my opinion is not correct. The definition of opinion disagrees with cons claim that "That person would have just stated a wrong fact, not a wrong opinion as con claims." According to Merriam-Webster an opinion does not have to be a fact, rather a belief of something. Anyone can believe anything, but not anything anyone beliefs is necessarily correct, if that makes sense."
Con fails to understand that even with his definition, opinions branch out much further, he has failed to cover subjective and objective, hinting that objective could easily prove him wrong; whereas I have provided facts on both sides. It would be unfair to bring up new points.
Con's definition backfired heavily against him and I have given examples as to why even with Qualia it can still be wrong. Good debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.