The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

wjmelements has a difficult time tolerating other people's opinions.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 13 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,348 times Debate No: 8083
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (18)
Votes (13)

 

mongeese

Pro

From my opponent's profile:
"If you disagree with your mom, you're dumb. If you disagree with me, you're wrong. I hate Keynesian economics and government intervention in the economy period. It disgusts me."

My opponent clearly has a difficult time tolerating the opinions of other people, as he thinks that everything that he thinks is true.

Additionally, from here: http://www.debate.org...
"No it doesn't...."
My opponent is trying to squash the opinion of another, because he refuses to tolerate it.

Thank you for accepting, should you accept this debate.
wjmelements

Con

There are two types of statements: objective and subjective.
Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought http://dictionary.reference.com...
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased http://dictionary.reference.com...

There are two different ways in which this resolution is negated.

-First, I may prove that an opinion that I have "a difficult time tolerating" is just simply wrong. If it is objectively false, then it is not an opinion.
-Second, I may prove that I do NOT have a difficult time tolerating other people's opinions, I just choose not to sometimes. The phrase "difficult time" implies that my not tolerating opinions is involuntary. However, it is often voluntary.

The first claim of my opponent has against me, it is mostly of the first incidence. I am always right. And I would like my opponent to provide an instance that I have been objectively wrong. In other cases, the differences are subjective and I just choose not to tolerate someone's opinion.

My opponent's specific claim, the second one, sources a time when I chose to not tolerate someone else's opinion. It was not because I impulsively had to crush his opinion with the phrase, "No it doesn't...", but because I wanted to.

I thank my opponent for this debate and await rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

Thank you for responding so quickly.

"The first claim of my opponent has against me, it is mostly of the first incidence. I am always right. And I would like my opponent to provide an instance that I have been objectively wrong. In other cases, the differences are subjective and I just choose not to tolerate someone's opinion."
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
In both of these debates, my opponent claimed that he would not break a rule. In both of these cases, he finally did break a rule. He told me so himself, in person, that he did in fact break a rule. Thus, he was, at one point, wrong, so he is not always right. The fact that he thinks that he is always right in itself proves that he has a difficult time accepting and tolerating the opinions of others.

Another debate in which he was wrong:
http://www.debate.org...
And some more random examples, scattered here:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

"My opponent's specific claim, the second one, sources a time when I chose to not tolerate someone else's opinion. It was not because I impulsively had to crush his opinion with the phrase, 'No it doesn't...', but because I wanted to."
It is simple; my opponent has such a difficult time tolerating snelld7's opinions that he does in fact have an impulse to point out that he is wrong. When wjmelements first saw the comment that said that the phrase, "True or ralse," sounded funny, he automatically and instinctly told himself, "That's a terrible idea!" He then allowed this impulse to convince him to post his disagreement. Even if he does not know it, he has an impulse to challenge any opinion that is not his. After all, he is a part of debate.org, and this website is full of people not tolerating the opinions of another.

Thus, my opponent does have a difficult time tolerating the opinions of others.

Thank you for this debate.

And even now, my opponent is having a difficult time tolerating my opinion that he has a difficult time tolerating other people's opinions.
wjmelements

Con

"In both of these debates, my opponent claimed that he would not break a rule. In both of these cases, he finally did break a rule. He told me so himself, in person, that he did in fact break a rule. Thus, he was, at one point, wrong, so he is not always right."

I never said that I could predict the future. I clearly just guessed wrong, and I did not have a difficult time tolerating that I guessed wrong and, in fact, could guess wrong. In those instances of the rule debates, I did not have a difficult time tolerating anyone's opinion.

My participating in debates does not mean that I have trouble tolerating other people's opinion. My losing debates does not show that either. Argumentation in itself does not mean that an opinion is not tolerated. In debate, it is acknowledged that someone else has another opinion and the very concept of debate obligates me to disagree with an opposing opinion.

Therefore, in all cases of debate, it is not that I do not tolerate an opposing opinion but that I am obligated to defeat it.

So, the resolution can only be proven using examples from non-debate, and the only such example given is that one where I said, "No it doesn't."
My opponent claims without proof that my saying that was impulsive without proof. My opponent has burden of proof as he is both the instigator and PRO. He did not meet this burden; therefore, my saying that was not impulsive. Further, I claim that I had though about it and had chose to disagree with him.

Therefore, we can easily conclude that the resolution has been effectively negated.

I thank my opponent for this debate and urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 2
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Yeah. In the last day of the voting week, I got ten points.

13 votes, that's impressive.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
I was winning until about the very end...
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
Wow, this one ended closer than I anticipated. I'll keep my fingers crossed for a rematch.
Posted by animea 8 years ago
animea
I voted Con because the pro never proved that wjmelements is impulsively intolerant to others. Pro never provided any proof of this(just speculation)
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
What? Read the debate? That's not was this is about. This is about giving seven points to whoever you hate less!
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Unless they actually read it...
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
And anyone who hates him would also agree with the resolution.
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
And now comes the anti-wjmelements hatred...
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
A debater-specific debate, based on profile comments no less! My favorite =D
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
What?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
mongeesewjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
mongeesewjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
mongeesewjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
mongeesewjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
mongeesewjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
mongeesewjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Marine1 8 years ago
Marine1
mongeesewjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
mongeesewjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Aziar44 8 years ago
Aziar44
mongeesewjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30