All opinions are equal

I would like to welcome my opponent to DDO and thank her for this debate. I wish her good luck in proving that all opinions are equal. "…Everyone has an equal right to their individual opinion" My opponent's first argument is that since everyone has a ‘right' to their individual opinion, that all opinions are equal. While my opponent is correct that anyone can believe whatever it is that they want, the actual voicing of this individual opinion is not a ‘right' everywhere. While most in ‘the west' can feel they have a right to voice and have any opinion they want, in many places around the world the verbalization of belief that is contradictory to the popular opinion or out of line with the established government or religion can lead to imprisonment and/or death. Is my opponent implying that in places without freedom of speech and a right to voice ones opinion, that the people who dwell there, have an opinion that is not equal to a person who does? Or is the ‘right' to voice ones opinion not pertinent in establishing the equality of all opinions? "In the past there have been some scientific opinions that were laughed at and then proven correct" This is an excellent point by my opponent. It is certainly true that in the history of society there have been instances where established belief has been disproved by scientific process and ultimately, empirical evidence. Would my opponent consider the opinions of a member of the clergy and an astronomer, equal, should they be asked, is the earth flat? "This shows how we must not judge opinions in this manner because one day they may be proven correct." My opponent is correct that we should not rush to dismiss any opinion. However every opinion should be taken in context and not be thought meritorious, simply by being associated with the establishment, popular opinion or even minority opinion. The question ultimately becomes, does this person or group of people know what they are talking about? Are they trained and educated enough to posit anything regarding this topic? And what do they have to gain by pushing such a belief? In our current era it is simple enough to find the *credible* opinions by doing a Google search or even opening up a phone book. If I'm building a bridge, the opinion of an engineer is going to be of greatest value. Investing in my retirement? I'll find a financial planner. Baby mama drama? I'll find a travel agent. Fixing my brain? I'll find a neurologist. Got a gory scene in a car in need of cleaning before the wife gets home tired from the graveyard shift at the hospital? I'm calling the wolf.[1] These are people whose opinion are in fact not equal to all other opinions, and even within their own field may have individuals whose opinion is undeniably more valuable than theirs. In this age of specialization there is no excuse not to find an opinion that is specific to that field or issue in order to maximize the potential for a gainful result. In fact, it is specifically because such specialization exists that all opinions are not equal. It is a given that anyone educated in a specific field should garner special respect towards their opinion on that topic. Yet, this issue goes further than just education. My opponent has stated that she believes that all opinions are equal, and while the ability to voice opinions may not be crucial to my opponents argument, it's important to point out that the ‘equality of value' regarding opinions based on education, is at least more humane than where it will be evaluated implicitly upon factors such as, gender, religion, family, and race. Outright dismissing from entire societies, opinions from anything not directly associated with the mainstream. Some form of this naturally exists everywhere. Therefore I believe that it is actually crucial for society to look towards education as an inevitable lesser evil in regards to their desire to ascribe an initial credibility, and specifically as a manner in which to discriminate properly. It is human nature to want to believe something that reinforces a viewpoint we already have, and only if we think critically about the main points and discriminate against those who are not experts in which they speak, will we have a chance to dispose of propaganda and retain a semblance of genuine discourse in all fields, whether that be science, politics, religion, or any other. Facts and truth can be distorted intentionally or through ignorance simply because not all opinions are equal. My opponent appears to be a citizen of the U.S., and thus has the ultimate ability towards exercising her equal opinion. ‘The Vote' is the fundamental method by which the U.S. has defined itself as a free nation, with equality for all, and such and such. Now that we know that not all opinions are equal, I must express some gratitude to those 50% of Americans who choose not to vote. Those that willfully do not take the time to vote in a statement that they do not believe their opinion is equal, that it is inferior, so much so that they feel it is not worth even expressing. My opponent must concede therefore that through some level of disenfranchisement, lack of education, or apathy (or other) that these very people whose opinions she declares are equal, do not agree, as reflected by their actions. My opponent and I agree that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. I believe my opponent and I agree that everyone should be able to voice whatever opinion they want as well. But my opponent and I disagree whether all opinions are equal. And so I ask my opponent, should you require a medical opinion that could save someone's life, would you not discriminate against an opinion that was not credible? Should you not ascribe higher value to the opinions of a doctor? Once again I wish to thank my opponent for this debate. I look forward to her response. Con. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...