I’d like to point something out because it is my interpretation that some here are either forming their opinions as they write or are perhaps struggling to effectively communicate their position.
RESPECT necessarily implies deference.
To say you should respect a person’s idea or opinion means you are deferring to that person’s judgement. That is why those of you saying we should respect opinions unequivocally are getting pushback. Respecting an opinion empowers said opinion. This can be good or bad - depending on the opinion. Reserving respect until you have thoroughly tested an opinion is a protection from empowering bad or harmful opinions/ideas.
Respecting others is good and noble, and we should pursue it whenever possible. That doesn’t mean it should be given freely.
Some people here have used language that stems from anti-realist philosophy. Not that that is bad, but you should be careful about what you say, as it has far reaching implications and may not be what you mean. The term “your truth” shifts the power dynamics of argumentation from an abstract point, where both sides can debate around that point scoring points back and forth, to the singular source of you. Where the only way to challenge that truth is to challenge the self. Meaning to prove “your truth” wrong, one would have to attack your ability to arrive at a truth.
To those with this view - not deferring to someone’s judgment via respect automatically is to call into question their ability to make judgements.
Whichever side you are on, in order to convince the other side of the virtue of your method of distributing respect, you would first have to get them to see truth the way you do. Otherwise we are just playing different games simultaneously.