Many people think it's fundamentally important that each person's beliefs are supported by the evidence available to them, even if they include personal experiences as "evidence". I challenge this on ethical grounds. In many situations, a person can hold a dubious belief without negative consequences. The belief might even interact with their psychology in beneficial ways. Therefore, debates should proceed in the following manner:
1. The defendant gives a proposition.
2. The opponent challenges that the proposition is not supported, AND that believing the dubious proposition could have negative consequences.
These consequences could involve: providing justification for harmful actions, hindering the progress of society, et cetera.
3. The defendant counterargues one of the following:
the proposition is in fact supported;
even if it's misconcieved, it's a benign misconception;
the belief has a direct psychological benefit that outweighs the potential for unforeseen harm.
Next time somebody challenges one of your beliefs, remember that the opponent has the burden of showing that your choice might actually be important, i.e. the burden of importance.
