How peculiar that every "debate" this person has lost is in the same ideological direction. How would this person respond to:
- the Christian explaining that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact?
- the prosecutor describing the heinous crimes of the people she's put behind bars?
- the sibling of an addict denouncing opiates & opioids, meth, crack and the drug trade?
Where's the limit for this person when encountering:
- the pederast who describes his perversion as "love?"
- the practitioner of FGM who praises it as a "tradition?"
- the religious fanatic who believes God has told him to kill?
I hope the person would be at least open to the first set of people, and would be willing to "win" against the second set.
Overall, I think the framing is a bit wrong. Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to stick your finger in the wind, and having firmly held beliefs without experience, knowledge or wisdom doesn't mean you need to preach them vociferously. Certain things are true, and certain perspectives are not so valuable.
- the Christian explaining that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact?
- the prosecutor describing the heinous crimes of the people she's put behind bars?
- the sibling of an addict denouncing opiates & opioids, meth, crack and the drug trade?
Where's the limit for this person when encountering:
- the pederast who describes his perversion as "love?"
- the practitioner of FGM who praises it as a "tradition?"
- the religious fanatic who believes God has told him to kill?
I hope the person would be at least open to the first set of people, and would be willing to "win" against the second set.
Overall, I think the framing is a bit wrong. Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to stick your finger in the wind, and having firmly held beliefs without experience, knowledge or wisdom doesn't mean you need to preach them vociferously. Certain things are true, and certain perspectives are not so valuable.