The Instigator
jackgilbert
Con (against)
The Contender
ElPinguinoPapista
Pro (for)

is there such a thing as a wrong opinion?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
jackgilbert has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 504 times Debate No: 115245
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)

 

jackgilbert

Con

For the first round, please just accept the debate. Arguments will begin next round.
Opinion is defined as a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
ElPinguinoPapista

Pro

Thank you, jackgilbert for starting the debate. For clarity, I assume we can agree on the resolution:

"Resolved: There is such a thing as a wrong opinion."

To further clarify the debate, I will accept your definition of "opinion."

Opinion: a belief, judgement, or perception that a person creates, regardless of whether it conforms to reality (fact or knowledge).

I am taking the affirmative (that there can be a wrong opinion), and, per your request, I will establish the affirmative case in Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
jackgilbert

Con

ARGUMENT 1: THE IDEA OF WRONG OPINIONS IS CONTRADICTORY
Opinion is not based on fact or knowledge, in other words it can vary from person or person. While one person might think oranges taste good, another might think they don't taste good. But if you are defining an opinion as not based off of fact or knowledge, than it cannot be right or wrong. But this leads to a contradiction because opinions, according to the definition can't be wrong yet you are saying that wrong opinions exist.

ARGUMENT 2: DON'T CONFUSE WRONG FACT WITH WRONG OPINION
People often argue that if people believe the sky is purple of green, than that would be a wrong opinion. But this isn't true. The idea that the sky is blue is a fact, not an opinion. So the idea that the sky is green is a wrong fact, not a wrong opinion. Same for other things as well. If you were to say that gravity does not exist, it wouldn't be a wrong opinion. It would be a wrong fact.

The only way wrong opinions would exist would be if we re-defined opinion as being based off of facts, otherwise, wrong opinions don't exist.
ElPinguinoPapista

Pro

I think the crux of this debate will be found in our definitions. These will be the debate's foundation and lens. We already have common ground in our definition of "opinion."

Opinion: a belief, judgement, or perception that a person creates, regardless of whether it conforms to reality (fact or knowledge).

--Resolutional Analysis--

Please remember that my responsibility as the affirmative side of this debate is to affirm the resolution that "there is such a thing as a wrong opinion." Therefore, to warrant an affirmative vote, I need only prove that there is at least one opinion exists that is wrong, that does not conform to reality.

--Contentions for the Affirmative Side--

Contention 1: Opinions are Independent of and Judged by Reality
What must be noted is that it is not true that an option "is not based on fact or knowledge," as the negative side argued. Per the definition, it may be based on facts or knowledge or it may be not. An opinion exists "regardless of whether it conforms to reality," per the definition. If that is true, what is it that may or may not conform to reality? Per the definition, "a belief, judgement, or perception." I will show some examples of each of these.

A. "Belief"
Man is able to believe many things. For example, (avoiding controversial examples)
"I believe that the company Apple makes the iPhone." That is a belief and it is true, in that it conforms to reality.
On the other hand,
"I believe that Theresa May is eligible to be President of the United States according to the current Constitution." While that may be hopeful, it is certainly not true, it does not conform to reality (in case you're wondering, the reason is that the Constitution requires the President to be born in the USA). It would, therefore, be a wrong opinion. The belief would be false.

B. "Judgement"
Man can also make judgements. While I could write a lengthy paragraph about how the justice system in America and many other nations presupposes that the judge's judgements actually matter (in that a guilty or not guilty verdict should be made according to the facts and not on some whim) I will instead appeal to subjective preferences. This may seem odd since these are often considered to be outside the realm of truth or knowledge. However, they are, indeed, a clear example of a true judgement. When someone says "this taste good" or "this smells bad," there is an implied "to me" at the end of the sentences. No one actually attempts to claim that, for example, cherry pie tastes bad objectively and universally for all people. Instead, one would say "cherry pie tastes bad (to me)." Therefore, when I am at an orchard and pick an apple and say "I judge this apple to be tasty (to me)" (because I am pretentious like that), if I am being honest, then I am making a true judgement. The apple, indeed, is tasty to me. However, how could I make a judgement about my preferences that is wrong? First, a judgement about preferences can be made about someone else, such as saying "I judge my friend to have liked the cherry pie," when my friend actually did not. That proves enough that there can be a wrong judgement. Second, while it seems odd, I could bite into the apple, receive sense data that it is not tasty, yet still judge it to be tasty to me. While it is peculiar and may almost never happen, it is still theoretically possible which is enough to prove the possibility of a wrong judgement.

C. "Perception"
The truth or falsehood of perceptions wholly depends on that which is perceived. For example, if I see a man walking down the street on a dark and rainy night, I could form a perception of him. A basic one would be his hair color. I could perceive it to be naturally brown or naturally blonde or another color. My perception must be either true or false depending on what his hair actually looks like.

--Responses to Objections--
Response to Argument 1: Definitional Error
As said in Contention 1, the definition is not that they are not based on fact or knowledge. The definition states that opinions may be created, regardless of what is true. Therefore, I can have a true opinion (that squares have four sides) or a false opinion (that triangles have three right angles).

Response to Argument 2: Facts Cannot Be Wrong
Facts are what themselves always conform to reality. If something is true, it is a fact. If it is not true, it is not a fact. This is evident in our definition of "opinion." If an opinion can be created regardless of facts then not only is it judged by facts but also their truth value is relative to facts, which would have to always be true otherwise we could not judge opinions by them. However, if this is not sufficient reasoning, and if we cannot agree on a definition of facts as we could for opinion, then I provide the following definition of "fact:"

"A thing that is known or proved to be true." -Oxford Dictionaries (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...)

Therefore, to have a false fact or a wrong fact is to contradict what the word "fact" really means.

--Conclusion--
To accurately explain how we encounter the world around us (and retain the meanings of words) we need to be able to form opinions about the facts. However, to avoid the error that we are inerrant in whatever we say, we must admit that our opinions can be wrong, in that they may not be right about the facts but may be wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
judaism
I'm happy for you.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
mosc
My opposition perhaps played a small role in the break up and abandonment of the attempt to re assert the judicial authority of the Sanhedrin within the modern Jewish State.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
mosc
How would you know what a person of higher intelligence would write? LOL In point of fact, during the last attempt to re establish the Sanhedrin, I opposed Rav Shwartz. When asked how a rabbi to whom he gave s'micha to could directly challenge his halachic opinions, Rav Waldman a contemporary of Rav Shwartz said, "You can not issue a drivers license to a person and not expect him to drive a car." To which Rav Shwartz concurred and personally said to me "S'much".

Rav Shwartz attempted to write a Siddur for the bnai noach movement. We had many points of friction on this score. Not just limited to Rav Shwartz but also with Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz the head of the Great Sanhedrin prior to its collapse.

Rav Shwartz, a big Rambam fan, and you know my views upon the Rambam! Rav Shwartz did not feel the urgent need to re establish the 6 cities of refuge with a Small Sanhedrin with a Cohen has the head of the Court and an altar in every one of these cities of refuge! The small sanhedrin courts serving as the spokes of the Federal Court system whose hub was the Great Sanhedrin. Instead Rav Shwartz got involved with the bnai noach issue. I held that domestic issues by far outweighed foreign issues.

Rav Shwartz got involved with the re establishment of the korban P'sach. I argued that a korban involved making an oath ... that it had nothing to do with making a bar BQ unto heaven! This greatly offended Rav Shwartz. LOL. Rav Shwartz favored the establishment of bnai noach courts of law outside of Israel. This he had my support. But when he decided for a Jewish beit din to adjudicate a noach dispute which occurred in Oklahoma, on that score I came down hard against him and all who supported this absurd idea. The jurisdiction of a Great Sanhedrin court, its limited only to within the borders of the Jewish State!

The decision taken by Rav Shwartz to try the case within Israel disgusted me! To make a Sanhedrin into a Torts court - hell no!
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
judaism
How about you write to them your beliefs and see if they'd still agree with their s'micha?

Also, stop calling me idiot. You prove yourselves the idiot when doing so, because a person of higher intelligence, wouldn't write like that.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
mosc
Tacitus, Agricola XXX: "make a desert and call it peace" Idiot.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
mosc
Rav Shwartz and 2 other dyyanim gave me s'micha. Your a$$ has nothing to do with it. LOL.
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
judaism
You say, "I'm a rabbi!" my a$$!
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
judaism
You don't even know where the quote's from. But have no issue calling me the "idiot"?
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
judaism
That was not a typo
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
mosc
I make dessert ... its only good manners to conclude a meal with dessert. idiot.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.