Open-mindedness is always a good thing

First, my counter-rebuttal: 1. Website demonstrating open-mindedness (rebuttal). When did I say that everyone on this website was open-minded? I think all I said was "But people (some anyway) do consider other points of view and are willing to listen to new ideas, like we are right now! And one of our opinions could be swayed! That is why websites like this exist, to make it easier for people to debate and sway each others opinions with good, well-reasoned arguments.". Of course there are people here for other reasons, trolling, hating, spewing propaganda and advertising a magic witch doctor that cures relationship issues. But the purpose of this site is not for them, it is for people like us, people who want to convince others to join their world view or at least learn about the other side. Even if this is only a minor point, I feel it should still be debunked. 2. Societal achievements (rebuttal). It is true that open-mindedness has bought about negative societal change, and you made an excellent point with the Nazis. But what has happened to Nazism? It has been deemed a hateful philosophy by the rest of the world and only persists in small numbers in the backwaters of society. Eventually hate is stomped out in favor of civility and understanding, this has been observed countless times, from the American civil war to world war two to the collapse of the South African apartheid government. Your argument about the topic of drugs (and by the way, alcohol is a drug too, so it's a little silly to refer to it as "drugs and alcohol") is very interesting and I wonder why you did not bring it up in your argument. But allow me address that argument: No, I think young people would not do illicit drugs more often then they already do if they were not closed-minded to drugs. Why? Because the information about what happens to you both physically and mentally would still be available, and I trust that the majority of young people would not want their life either ruined or otherwise significantly impaired by drugs. So the difference between this and being closed-minded is that the people actually got to decide and weigh the pros and cons by themselves, instead of it just being told to them like they were mindless drones. The reason that the outcomes (most young people don't do drugs) of the two methods are similar is because the cons do outweigh the pros when it comes to this topic, and the 'man' as it were, says that drugs are bad for you as well. Really ,it doesn't matter whether you are open or closed-minded on the issue of drug use (for now at least), because the conclusion is often the same. 3. Scientific achievements (rebuttal). It is a good thing that you know that science is based in open-mindedness, some people would tell you otherwise, that science is just another way for Satan to get at you. But you then go on to say "However, once scientists come to a conclusion (e.g. the earth is round) they are close-minded to any other explanation because they have discovered the definitive proof, and do not take kindly to contradictions.". While it is true that some people in the scientific community can be zealous about the current scientific model for reality, the majority of scientific persons are open-minded about other possibilities for answers to questions like, say, the shape of the earth. The only problem is that the evidence that the earth is round is overwhelming, not that the scientists are closed-minded about that topic. If we were not so sure that the earth was round scientists would gladly listen to alternative theories. The reason most scientists don't listen to all the ideas regarding important questions (and thus appear closed-minded) is because they need to have factual, solid evidence supporting the idea to believe it. It is the job of the people who think the idea to be true to find evidence supporting the idea, then scientists will examine the evidence for themselves, re-examine the evidence supporting the idea previously thought to be the correct answer, and decide whether the new idea trumps the old idea and becomes the accepted answer or the old idea remains the accepted answer. If definitive evidence or at the very least a logical explanation is not provided, scientists will have nothing to do with it. Science constantly changes its answers to questions to fit the evidence that continually comes up as time progresses, it would be against the nature of science to stick to an answer even though the evidence says otherwise. I wanted to clear this up for both my opponent and anyone reading this-science and closed-mindedness are polar opposites and the two can never mix and have it still be called science. 4. Leader (rebuttal). Yes, it is true that sometimes a leader needs to 'call the shots' without anyone else's opinion. But in most of those situations time is of the essence and a good leader can't afford the time needed to get input on possible decisions, this doesn't mean the leader is being closed-minded in this situation, it means that the leader needs to make a decision quickly and the best way to do that is making the decision by him/herself, but this doesn't mean that the leader is "unreceptive to new ideas or information" like the definition says. The majority of leadership situations, however, would benefit from listening to the ideas and suggestions of others. That is why the President of the United States has a cabinet, to help them make a decision. 5. Judge (rebuttal). I agree that a lack of bias is necessary for a good judge, but I'm pretty sure that open-mindedness is needed as well. As the definition of open mindedness reads: "willing to consider different ideas or opinions, the opposite of closed-minded", and as the definition of closed-mindedness reads: "unreceptive to new ideas or information, the opposite of open-minded". Here, you can see that open-mindedness is the opposite of closed-mindedness, and closed mindedness means that one is unreceptive to new information. If the judge was not receptive to new information in the rape case (such as DNA evidence that it was not the defendant who committed the rape) he/she may come to the incorrect conclusion. while it may seem like this argument is invalid, I think I have just proved that it is valid. 6. The purpose of debate (rebuttal). I do think that we are trying to convince others to vote for us, but it is our duty to attempt to convince each other as well. Your argument for the purpose of debate only applies to this website and perhaps a few others, while my opinion on the purpose of debate covers all kinds of debate, private, public and online. It is true that debating serves as an exchange of thought and a testing ground for ideas, but I think it is untrue to say "A debate comes after the open-mindedness stage, after you have digested the information, and have made a decision.". The open-mindedness stage on a topic never really ends (unless one is mentally conditioned otherwise, by one's self or others), your opinion can sway in multiple directions before you can be definitive in your personal opinion. And even then you can be convinced to have a different opinion on that topic. You debate to do the following things: 1. Exchange ideas, viewpoints and opinions. 2. Convince others to your ideas, viewpoints and opinions. 3. Be convinced to others ideas, viewpoints and opinions. Have you ever come to a decision on a topic? And have you been convinced to come to a different decision on that topic by someone else? Have you ever convinced someone who had a different opinion on a subject to instead share your opinion? If so, you have just proved yourself wrong, if not so, I don't know how either of these things haven't happened to you. It is very surprising that you bring up the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate and say "at the end, Mr. Nye was a staunch Atheist and evolutionist, and Mr. Ham was a staunch Christian and creationist". In case you don't remember, here is the video of the debatehttp://www.youtube.com.... At the end of the debate, both Ken Ham and Bill Nye were asked if they could ever be convinced that the other was right, Ken Ham said he could never be convinced that Bill Nye was right, but Bill Nye said that it would only take just one piece of definitive evidence to get him to re-examine his world view entirely and possibly be convinced that Ken Ham was right after all (I wouldn't call that 'staunch'), like any good and open-minded scientist. And another thing, arguments don't always convince you, that is why I am not a creationist and Christian and you an Atheist and evolutionist after watching the debate. Also, I did not first bring up the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate as an argument for open-mindedness, I brought it up as an example of a large debate that got a lot of attention and had a lot of importance placed on it, as supporting evidence that debating is an important activity. But it seems that you have forced my hand and now it has become another argument for open-mindedness. Now that my counter-rebuttal is out of the way, I would like to say a few things. While you may just look at the title of this debate and vote pro, I urge potential voters to read all of my opponent's arguments as well as my own and come to your own conclusion on who is right, because that is what being open-minded is all about, being willing to consider different ideas or opinions. To my opponent: You have done a very good job in this debate and I would like to have another debate with you some other time. As usual I apologize if I have offended you in any way with my words, although I was very careful this time not to be offending. Thank you for accepting this debate and I know that you will provide this website with a wonderful counter-rebuttal. Good luck.