The Instigator
Tiny_beautiful_nature
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
PurpleSloth
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

A beggar is smarter than a person with PHD

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Tiny_beautiful_nature
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 649 times Debate No: 79011
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Tiny_beautiful_nature

Pro

A beggar, by which i mean an uneducated man will always be smarter than a highly educated person.
PurpleSloth

Con

First, it is important to understand what an education and knowledge is. Are you saying that they have more knowledge in the sense that they know more about applicable things or just genuinely smarter. Also that you said "will always be smarter" seems false because I think it would depend on the topic and person. I believe because of the educated man's education he is smarter in a general sense. I am sorry for I am new to this so thanks for letting me participate.
Debate Round No. 1
Tiny_beautiful_nature

Pro

Hey, welcome to debate.org.

Firstly I understand your confusion, so let me explain what I meant by knowledge. I am not talking about education, as in the knowledge that one gets from an institution, but about the knowledge as whole.

In my opinion knowledge consist from two parts: education that you receive from an institution and life experience.

And here is my argument as to why a beggar (uneducated person) will always be smarter than a highly educated person.

An uneducated man who hasn’t received any education from an institution has received all his knowledge from life experience. On the other hand a highly educated person, who spent many years in learning institutions i.e. schools.

Now I know what you’ll say. I just totally destroyed my argument. But think about it from another perspective. A person who hasn’t received any education from an institution, doesn’t know about biology, history, chemistry, math, etc. In his point of view, all that exists is his life, how he will get money, where will he get food, etc. That’s his 100%.

A highly educated person on the other hand knows about atoms, molecules, math… He knows that all of those things exist so his 100% (of all the knowledge he could get), is way bigger than that of the uneducated man.

So if you put it like that the uneducated man knows around let’s say 60% of all the knowledge he knows exists and the highly educated man knows only let’s say 5% of all the knowledge he knows exists.

So let me ask you… If you don’t know something exists does that make you stupid, because in that case there are no smart people on Earth.

And that is why an uneducated man will always be smarter than a highly educated person.

PurpleSloth

Con

The problem is if it is depended on what you know exists then he who knows the least will always know more. To know everything that exists is impossible do to the limit amount of information your brain can understand, retain, and remember. If knowledge is just the percentage of what you know exists then the more you know the dumber you become and therefore ruins the meaning and understanding of what knowledge is. That would mean the smartest person in the world would be a baby do to its lack of knowledge of the existent.

To answer your question, no I do not believe that if someone doesn't know something exists then that in and of itself makes them stupid, just not fully educated on the subject.

I believe the man who is educated in institutions, or schools has a broader span of knowledge and a greater depth do to his time spent studying or being taught.

This is why I believe an educated man has more knowledge then the beggar (uneducated person).
Debate Round No. 2
Tiny_beautiful_nature

Pro

Firstly the con argued "To know everything that exists is impossible do to the limit amount of information your brain can understand, retain, and remember." ... I disagree. Our brains have massive amount of "storage", as it is explained in the article by Paul Reber, professor of psychology at Northwestern University:

"MR. OSBORNE, may I be excused? My brain is full,” a student with a particularly tiny head asks his classroom teacher in a classic Far Sidecomic by Gary Larson. The deadpan answer to this question would be, “No, your brain is almost certainly not full.” Although there must be a physical limit to how many memories we can store, it is extremely large. We don’t have to worry about running out of space in our lifetime.

The human brain consists of about one billion neurons. Each neuron forms about 1,000 connections to other neurons, amounting to more than a trillion connections. If each neuron could only help store a single memory, running out of space would be a problem. You might have only a few gigabytes of storage space, similar to the space in an iPod or a USB flash drive. Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories at a time, exponentially increasing the brain’s memory storage capacity to something closer to around 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes). For comparison, if your brain worked like a digital video recorder in a television, 2.5 petabytes would be enough to hold three million hours of TV shows. You would have to leave the TV running continuously for more than 300 years to use up all that storage.


If anything, we are limited by time.


Secondly, I would like to ask con to explain what his view on knowledge is. What does the word mean to him, because judging by his statement, he is saying that knowledge can only be gained in institutions... So let me ask you.. What about before the time of schools? Does that make all the poorer people who lived in that time and couldn't afford expensive education stupid? And not to be obvious or anything but those people, figured out how to farm others also uneducated became healers, and until the witch processes in Europe, they were the only ones who took care of people, all without ever stepping a foot in a school.

And finely I would just like to question cons naivety. His blind belief in institutions kind of scares me, because I know many are like him. Let me just ask you something... How exactly do u know everything they teach you is accurate? That everything they teach you really exists (atoms, Newton's laws...) Have you seen them, tested them? So how do you know? The answer is you blindly believe, because without that belief you would be lost and your world would shut down. But yea.. that's a topic for a new debate for a totally new day.

PurpleSloth

Con

PurpleSloth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Tiny_beautiful_nature 2 years ago
Tiny_beautiful_nature
I am terribly sorry that i couldn't finish the debate but I was away and didnt't have access to the site.
Posted by roguetech 2 years ago
roguetech
>Now I know of course we were destined to take matters into our own hands,

Sounds like a good debate to start. Whether we have any ability to take "matters into our own hands", and whether the "beggar" actually made such a choice, or was denied alternate choices.
Posted by Touchedtoo 2 years ago
Touchedtoo
I am absolutely with pro on this one: the poor man is smarter. Here's why: our species isn't unique or one of a kind at all. Therefore when anyone has an opposing thought or approving on a matter this reveals our self centered passion therein blinding our general view. You see I believe everything in the universe is connected (stay with me). Now I know of course we were destined to take matters into our own hands, not caring frankly about the way we are fixed to result to those thought patterns, in contrast to perceiving life as a monk. But I think a monk would perceive the poor man as the smartest because the poor man has total access to his circumstance. Whereas the intelligent one has to think, explore and hopefully come to be in the know. I mention all of this and decided not to immediately arrive to my point because it isn't what "I" think, it's what is. Thanks for staying with me. Hopefully I got my point across.
Posted by Tiny_beautiful_nature 2 years ago
Tiny_beautiful_nature
Sorry i didn't post my argument earlier, but i have been busy.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 2 years ago
roguetech
Tiny_beautiful_naturePurpleSlothTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to establish their premise. Since they never actually defined "knowledge" (rather defined what it's not), I am forced to presume a standard dictionary definition, such as "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education". Yet, Pro's argument seems to rest on knowledge being akin to a ratio of useful information. They seem to be arguing that a greater proportion of a beggar's knowledge is useful. I personally reject that, but Con didn't refute it. However, such a definition is completely irrelevant to knowledge as a whole. Knowledge does not address usefulness. Further, the debate is about "smart", not "knowledge". I presume "smart" is being used as a synonym for intelligence, defined like "The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". No mention was made as to *ability* to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Vote Placed by Sarra 2 years ago
Sarra
Tiny_beautiful_naturePurpleSlothTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff