When arguing over a given topic, many people seem to believe that I should respect an opinion and avoid giving a rebuttal, even when that opinion is factually wrong.
At the end of the day, the facts speak the truth. And unless there's research to suggest otherwise, they stay solid. Sure, you could formulate an argument around facts, but you can't deny or dismiss them from an argument, no matter who says it.
Even if you don't always agree with them, they can still be right. Even if their behavior is infested with double standards or hypocrisy, if the facts they give genuinely exist, or if their argument is factually legitimate, attacking their character won't change their argument or the credibility of it.
But if your argument is objectively worse than another, it doesn't always deserve to be accepted — unless it's based on a what-if, philosophical debate or other intangible clauses.
It doesn't matter whether you argue for the universal GPA, a lack of climate change, a fake historical event or a conspiracy. Unless it brings a new and viable argument to the table, you're wrong.
Your opinion doesn't change the core facts derived from research — that the GPA can't predict intelligence, the world's weather has gotten more out of whack, unicorns didn't walk onto this earth in 1942 and Pizzagate didn't happen. There's substantial evidence to support all of those statements, and nothing you say will make it otherwise.
See, data can change over time. Maybe a new discovery comes along, and it turns out that the previous data was false. But you've got to have a lot of hope that things turn around. And hoping won't change the facts of the present. It doesn't change the fact that, yes, you are wrong.
In my life, especially, some people consider me extremely close-minded. In their eyes, I won't tolerate, let alone accept, an opinion other than my own. The truth is, I just think that not everyone is entitled to have their opinion respected.
If they can't give me a legitimate, fact-based reason for why they believe in something, then without any established credibility to defend them, I don't see a reason to respect it — especially if it's factually false. I've changed sides a couple times. For example, my views on taxation, gun control, meritocracy, free speech and market have all shifted to some degree.
The thing is, I know quite a few people who believe in many "old-school" ideas — education is just one example. The moment I begin to dig deeper into the argument, the more I get responses like, "That's lame." And that just discredits facts altogether.
"That's just what I believe" doesn't belong in a debate.
Yes, you are entitled to have an opinion. But you aren't entitled to get respect for it if you're wrong.
