Open-mindedness is always a good thing

Per the guidelines set in place, I will at this time respond to my opponent's argument from round 2. 1. Website demonstrating open-mindedness. This is simply not the case. True, we are here to exchange opinions and arguments, but that does not assume that every person on here is necessarily open-minded. In fact, I have had several conversations with people during which both of us were so dead-set on our opinions that neither of us shifted in our stance. But this is only a minor point. 2. Societal achievements. Yes, the example brought up is one of the times open-mindedness is good. Open-mindedness certainly could have brought these good things about, but it can also bring negative societal change. Young people who are not careful to be close-minded about certain things may find that highly praised open-mindedness to be their weak spot. They might consider drugs and alcohol and other things because they think it would be bad to openly reject such things. Eventually, they may find themselves entangled in a snare that they might not otherwise have gotten into. Among the Nazis, there were likely many people who were open-minded to the idea that the Jews were defiling their race. They believed it, and helped Hitler commit one of the worst (if not the worst) atrocities in recent history. The founding fathers were open-minded about slavery, and therefore, slavery persisted for about a hundred years. Changes in society, due to open-mindedness are not always good. 3. Scientific achievements. My opponent is correct that science is, in the beginning inherently open-minded. 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. I will not say whether this is good or not, I am just saying that there is as much close-mindedness as open-mindedness in science. 4. Leader. Yes, a leader does need to listen to others, but there is a time and place for that. There are sometimes when a leader needs to just go ahead and follow his or her gut to accomplish the goal. After all, that is why they were chosen to be a leader, to call the shots. When my family and I went to Mount Rainier a few years ago, we went on a trail with a park ranger as a guide. Everything was covered in ten feet of snow, so the ranger was there to make sure we did not get hurt. The ranger instructed us exactly where to go, and was close-minded to any suggestions because he knew what was the best course of action. This type of leader may not always be popular, but I personally am glad that he was close-minded to suggestions. Otherwise, who knows where we might be now? 5. Judge. For this argument, I think that my opponent accidentally confused open-mindedness for a lack of bias. We do not necessarily need a judge who is willing to consider different opinions, but one who is willing to put aside his or her personal prejudices and preferences and view the defendant with a clean slate. Here is a definition of bias to consider: Bias: an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) A good judge clears as many preconceived notions about the defendant out and lets the lawyers representing the defendant and plaintiff convince him of whether or not the defendant is guilty. This debate is not about bias, so it is my opinion that this argument does not apply. 6. The purpose of debate. If our primary purpose for debate is to convince the other to agree with their side, then we have largely failed. I have never seen either side of a debate openly agree with the other. I have either watched or read hundreds of debates, and the closest I have seen to agreement is a forfeit. Why? Because we are trying to convince you, the voter, to vote for us, not for our opponent. It is my contention that debate is an exchange of ideas, a place where you test them out, like a great experiment. A debate comes after the open-mindedness stage, after you have digested the information, and have made a decision. That is when you debate to defend your viewpoint and broaden your defensive skills. Pro brought up the example of the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate. If you watched it, however, you might have noticed that at the end, Mr. Nye was a staunch Atheist and evolutionist, and Mr. Ham was a staunch Christian and creationist. By the end of that debate, they were both equally convinced that they were right. My opponent is an Atheist, and even if he watched the debate, he is not a creationist Christian. I am a Christian, and I watched the debate, but I am most definitely not an Atheist evolutionist. Therefore the example brought up by my opponent does not support his point and actually undermines it. I would like to make one last observation. Pro has the burden to prove that open-mindedness is always good all the time. What he has so far done to accomplish this endeavor was bring up six examples of times he claims open-mindedness is good. Six examples are nice, but they fail to prove that open-mindedness is ALWAYS good. Therefore the resolution at hand is yet to be upheld. My standpoint is that open-mindedness is not always good, so all I need to convince you as the voter of is one instance open-mindedness is not or was not good. I hope I have done so.