All opinions are equal

I would like to reiterate my position that all opinions not equal and society in general has a responsibility to discriminate against opinions that are in fact, inferior. The ONLY method of this discrimination MUST be based on education (including informal education, or experience etc. ) My first argument was in regards to whether or not the ability to freely share an opinion was relevant to the equality of opinions. The final sentence of that argument was a question of whether or not my opponent considered ‘freedom of speech' relevant to opinion equality. My opponent's answer is, no. Respecting that answer, I will drop my opening argument. I will however speak to my opponents opening rebuttal later this round. Therefore, my opponent needs to explain why a ‘right' to an opinion, makes any other opinions equal. A right to own a weapon doesn't make all weapons equal. A right to assemble doesn't make all assemblies equal. My opponent's second rebuttal is with regards to experience. She states: "I believe that people with less experience could hold at least as good ideas or opinions" This could certainly be true, but all things being equal, would my opponent not take the opinion of the person with more experience? My opponent then contradicts her own resolution by stating: "They need to collaborate with the people who have experience to make the best idea possible" If all opinions are equal, why would people with more experience need to be involved to come up with the best idea possible? Is my opponent conceding that experience does indeed lead to a more educated point of view, and therefore an opinion of greater value? My opponent uses Einstein as an example of someone who was uneducated, and therefore his opinions were considered of lesser value. I'd like to explore this argument in more depth, not only because I think my opponent is wrong in associating her argument with Einstein, but because of the irony of using Jews in her first rebuttal, yet failing to realize some of the same social conditions leading to the dismissal of Einstein's theories, had little to nothing to do with his education. My opponent points out by using the Third Reich's dehumanization of Jews that the inability to state an opinion, does not invalidate an opinion, and on that, we agree. But that society did not feel that way, the Jews at the time were considered subhuman and their opinions were irrelevant to the society that would persecute them. Does this make their actual opinions lesser than anyone else's point of view? No. It simply means that the society they lived within did not care what they had to say. This is part of my main point, because it is entirely independent of their education, as many Jews at the time had been assimilated into the culture and were often well educated. Instead this reflects some level of societal feeling that the Jews were a parasite worth removing. The idea of listening to their opinions would have been similar to asking a rat. Who would even entertain the idea of asking a rat its opinion? Even if this rat was a super educated circus rat. The idea is clearly ridiculous. My opponent says that Einstein was uneducated so his ideas were dismissed. I contend that Einstein theories were rejected for numerous reasons, most of which had nothing to do with education. Many scientists were right to be critical of Einstein's theories, as with all science, it needs to be looked at skeptically until proven. However, much of the criticism of Einstein's Theory of Relativity had little to do with science, nor his education. Some of it was political… "…Nationalistically motivated criticisms of relativity and modern physics" "Pierre Duhem regarded relativity as the product of the "too formal and abstract" German spirit, which was in conflict with the "common sense". " "Soviet union and China…rejected the theory not because of factual objections, but ideologically motivated as the product of western decadence" Some of it was prejudice… "…In Germany it was the Jewish ancestry of relativity proponents such as Einstein, Minkowski, Born, which made them targets of racist critics" "Paul Weyland was a known nationalistic agitator who arranged the first public meeting against relativity in Berlin in 1919" "Theodor Fritsch emphasized the alleged negative consequences of the "Jewish spirit" within relativity" "Gehrcke's book on "The mass suggestion of relativity theory" (1924)…. was praised by the far-right press as describing an alleged typical Jewish behavior. " "Philipp Lenard in 1922 spoke about the "foreign spirit" as the foundation of relativity, and afterward he joined the Nazi party in 1924" --[1][2] …Very little of it was education. While much of the scientific criticisms of Einstein's theories are ‘valid', this episode shows us that had the claims against Einstein been specifically about his education, the attempts to delegitimize those theories would not have become so absurd. My opponent asks: "…is my opponent implying that Einstein's opinions were less valid because he didn't receive that formal education? " Einstein did receive that formal education, as he earned a degree in physics from ETH in 1900. [3] …Showing that whatever was making his opinion ‘less valid' had little to do with education. My opponent concludes her second argument with the following: "If education were all that mattered, Einstein's opinions wouldn't have been considered valuable when they actually changed the way we think about physics today. " I contend that if education were all that mattered, Einstein's opinions would have been accepted much earlier. I believe I have proven that. In my opponents third rebuttal she continues to use the ‘Earth is flat' example I brought up in the first round. Though she doesn't answer the question I asked using that example, she states the following: "Let's say someone said [the earth is flat] even though it is commonly considered by society that the earth is round. That opinion is still valid and important" I think it would be important to look at the credentials (education) of any such individual making such a claim. If they weren't some type of scientist I believe most would reasonably dismiss all of what this person had to say on the subject. My opponent continues: "Even if it is not commonly accepted by society, there is still a chance that there may be some element of truth. " My opponent and I completely agree on this. Such is the reason that freedom of speech is so important for all societies, not because all opinions are equal, but because the most important opinions are often unpopular opinions, and yet they still may be educated opinions. My opponent concludes in reiterating the importance of listening to all opinions and treating all opinions as equal, in an effort to be sure to allow all opinions to affect society in as positive a way as possible. My opponent and I agree on this generally, however, it is not because all opinions are equal. It is simply because the only way that the educated can be sure of their ‘right' to their opinion, is if everyone is assured of their ‘right' to their opinion. This creates the ‘variety' of opinion my opponent makes focal in her argument, regardless of the opinions ‘value'. To reiterate: Not all opinions are equal, and discriminating against opinions solely on the basis of education is beneficial to society. Other opinions based on life experience should not be immediately dismissed, but life experience does not validate one's opinion on advanced physics, and is therefore, not equal. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.nobelprize.org... [3] . http://www.history-timelines.org.uk...