Beginners SHOULD learn openings

True, it's really important for beginners to start learning about openings. Mostly principles though, but it's crucial to stop falling for traps and so on. You can't always play from a terrible position.

I disagree. It is far more important for beginners to learn the basic principles of chess.  As described by Yasser Seirawan, they are: force, time, space and pawn structure. Without becoming familiar with those principles, openings will not make sense. Openings are useful or not only within the context of those basic principles, not as weapons in their own right. 

Structure and piece development go hand in hand.  Different pawn structures are used for different plans and your pieces compliment that.  A beginner with a plan will be more prepared to set their pieces up on effective squares.  If your pieces are more active, you are setting your opponent up for tactics down the road. 

@carlto720 I really like Ginger GM.  He explains the plans behind the moves though (I think he does this very well).  He tries to explain the spirit of the moves and the principles behind them which allows you to take advantage of an inferior move.  Even so, some of what he discusses might be too advanced for a beginner and would be better left for later.  For example, in some of his videos he advocates for the Poisoned Pawn Winawer.  Here black gives white a bigger center, gives up the bishop pair (his good bishop to boot), and then gives away a pawn.  Opening principles might keep you from playing this way while memorizing theory wouldn't.  If white deviates from theory, you forget a move, etc, you can wind up in bad shape pretty quickly.   

If you like his style, his youtube channel has loads of videos where he gives you insight into his thought process during games.

It's fine for beginners to learn openings, as long as they understand what they're learning, and the logic behind each move.

If they don't understand the moves, though, then it's just pointless, and it proves that they aren't ready yet.

But if they do understand what they're learning, then it can absolutely help their game improve.

So a lot depends on the student, and their level of understanding.

     It all depends on what the beginner is looking for. If he wants to achieve a better win/loss % vs other beginners then learning opening traps and specific lines will work best. If they want to become a good player, learning basic opening principles and trying to apply them in the games they play will serve them better in the long run. Just realize that finding opening lines that help beat weak players will do little good when your rating rises and you face stronger players. Then the opening principles, understanding pawn structures, deeper tactical calculation and endgame knowledge become more important. Learning the basics first will slow your initial success but will pay off in becoming a better player more quickly.

     But if they learn the "other stuff" first they will better appreciate what you show them about openings later. It depends on the beginner--if they will become discouraged by losing more often at first and give up it is unlikely that they will be willing to work hard enough later to ever reach their potential.

This. It's important to start learning why certain moves are good and bad. It's just not good for a new player to always weaken their king to a point of no return.

I still don't understand why someone would want to focus on openings first without understanding the basic principles, and why some would advise them that this is ok. But, as the young people say, "whatever."  To each his or her own.

No one says they need to memorise 20 moves of theory. They need to know the principles and common traps and not get mated in 4 moves.

If you follow opening principles, you don't get mated in 4 moves.

Yes, that's why knowing how to play the opening properly is important.

ive been studying openings about a dozen years if I told you they don't matter at all it would burn off both of your ears.

I agree with this, you can't just beat the Sicilian "with the opening principles" am I right? Opening principles take 5 minutes to learn and in open situations even a baby could apply them, if you want to learn openings as a lower rated player there is no reason you shouldn't!

That's why the Sicilian is so much easier to play as white (at lower levels anyway). If white plays the open Sicilian he is developing rapidly, taking more space in the center, etc. All opening principals. 

It may take 5 minutes to learn them, but people spend much longer learning how they apply and when to ignore them

I try to learn openings

You can't just beat any openings with opening principles. That's why the game usually also features a middlegame and potentially an endgame.

When people say 'don't study openings' it does not mean that you shouldn't study the middlegames. So, don't learn the first 20 moves of a line in the Dragon, but do study positions with opposite castling. Don't study 20 lines in the Shvesnikov, but do study positions with a backwards pawn and/or with strong squares. 

I agree with every word you said except QG being a good option because the Tarrasch, Slav, Semislav, QGD, QGA, and Albin are all options, and the complexity ends up rivaling that of the Sicilian, French, Spanish, and Indian. Also, I'd add Smith-Morra Gambit to the "good" pile if the Sicilian does get played against you.

IMO force, time, and space being principles of chess makes no sense in the Alekhine's as it literally gives all three to your opponent and you still end up with only a slightly worse position (just like every black opening).