- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Hold on, wait.
So answering the question "Do we have to respect everyone's beliefs?" In the affirmative and posting a justification "Mhm. It would stop wars."
Can not in any way shape or form logically be construed to mean or imply "Respecting peoples beliefs would stop wars; and that is a positive reason to hold the affirmative position".
Can you please explain why that is not the logical implication of your original post in small, logical steps
Because that fundamental implication of your post is what I am countering.
Unless, for some reason, you pressed the wrong button and posted in the wrong column...
You originally said: Mhm. It would stop wars in support of the resolution.
I would like you to enlighten me as to why you think that me stating (effectively) "well, given history, that's not always a good thing", is not a valid dispute to raise on that statement.
So what was your point?
That stopping wars isn't always a good thing by explicitly pointing out that the key wars that would indeed have been stopped by respecting peoples beliefs are arguably the wars that most needed to be fought for the good of humanity in general.
Yes; such respect of other peoples beliefs would have arguably stopped World War 2 and the American Civil War.
While most definitely not in all cases, in many situations it has only been the challenging and NOT respecting peoples beliefs that have brought about every landmark change in attitudes that has led to increased rights for all.
Slavery, Womens Suffrage, Equal Rites, The End Nazism, and many other horrors of our history have arguably only ever been brought about by a group of people standing up and pointing out how stupid the other person beliefs are.
While granted these are not religion, which is sort of implied but not stated at the top of this debate: Several religions are actively trying to bring about similar aspects of the above.
There is a major, significant and massive difference between respecting someones right to have a belief and respecting the belief itself.
If beliefs had no effect on any other person other than the believer, then it maybe fair that we should respect peoples beliefs as they by definition have no effect on anyone else.
However, in a world where different peoples beliefs or exercising of those beliefs often involve affecting other people, be it via indoctrination, violence, mistreatement, curtailing of rights or imposing of some portion of that belief on others; then that belief should not ever HAVE to be respected simply because it is their belief.