The Instigator
CGBSpender
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
askbob
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Knowledge has inherent value

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,320 times Debate No: 15535
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

CGBSpender

Pro

The first round will only be for the clarification of terms and acceptance of the debate.

Inherent: existing in something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute [1]

Value: relative worth, merit, or importance [2]

Knowledge: acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation [3] (Namely, possessing data which a person cannot reasonably doubt, pertaining to some ``reality`` whatever the nature of that might be.)

I look forward to an interesting debate.

Works Cited
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
askbob

Con

My opponent has left two key elements out of is resolution which have been clarified in the comments:

All Knowledge has inherent value to everyone and everything on the whole

"taken on a whole knowledge has value."

I accept my opponents definitions and await his R2 argument.

Debate Round No. 1
CGBSpender

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I would like to begin by challenging some of the changes to the resolution. The changes do not really add anything. By adding "to everyone and everything on the whole", my opponent renders the purpose of word inherent meaningless. If a trait is inherent why would it change from person to person or thing to thing? I find the words "on the whole" are also unnecessary as there are no words to suggest that the debate is dealing with some knowledge and not other knowledge. For this reason I will accept the clarification of the word "All".

1)Why Knowledge and not True Belief?
As far back as Plato, the question of what makes knowledge better than an accurate belief has posed problems. Plato's own solution to this was to point to the consistency that knowledge offers, where mere belief is malleable, it "moves around" [1]. It is important to remember that the only difference between knowledge and true belief is that threshold of rational doubt.
There is an excellent example of this in one of the most famous English plays of all time, Hamlet. Had Hamlet known from the very start that his uncle was guilty and he should kill him all of the tragedy of the play would be avoided. It is the fact that there is room for doubt in Hamlet's mind that pushes him to wit's end so that when he finally does decide to act it is too late [2].
Though this is only a fictional story, it demonstrates the very real importance of true certainty, a very helpful "important" thing, in any decision making process. Considering that life is nothing but a series of decision making processes, one can see how knowledge has universal value. This also shows that an integral part of knowledge (i.e. that "which a person cannot reasonably doubt") is where its value lies. This clearly demonstrates why the value of knowledge is inherent rather than say true of some cases and not of others.

2) Knowledge is Inherent in Value
In Kant's "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals", he states that no characteristic is good but a good will (I am paraphrasing) [3]. He says this is because any other traits can be used for bad unless there is also a good will present [3]. It is a similar thing with value and knowledge. What would a bird do with a gold coin? What would a person do with an alien spacecraft if they thought it was a rock? In both of these cases a knowledge of how to benefit from the objects is required to derive value from them. To put it in Kantian terms: all else can be beneficial or hurtful unless one knows how to make it beneficial.
Of course, a person could argue that the bird could derive value from what it believes the gold coin to be. For example, the bird could use the shiny thing to make its nest more appealing. It should be noted that ven that requires knowledge of how to use the material. Any value a person derives from it is based on knowledge of at least what will make it valuable to them. It is in this way that value can be relative but is inseparable from knowledge which, this relationship shows, is inherently valuable.
We could go further and say "all knowledge has inherent value", if one has the knowledge to use knowledge. It does not change the resolution to say that all knowledge is inherently valuable, but knowledge is required to unlock that inherent value. This would be a problem only if the resolution was "all pieces of knowledge are independently valuable".

I will finish with one small point.

3) The Optional Nature of Knowledge
At no point in the process of having knowledge is there an obligation put upon you to accept it. A person could just as easily irrationally reject a piece of knowledge if they so desired. From this we derive that there is no downside to possessing knowledge. It demands nothing of those that pursue it except the pursuit which is the bare minimum cost of anything.
Conclusion
From point 1, we conclude that there is a value particular to knowledge derived from a quality particular to knowledge thus show the inherent nature of knowledge's relationship to value. In point 2, it was demonstrated that value depends on knowledge and so the fact that knowledge is valuable was affirmed. In point 2, it was also shown that all knowledge has inherent value is true of all knowledge rather than just some. In point 3, it was shown that the benefits of knowledge will always outweigh the costs as there is no danger in rationally pursuing knowledge.

[1] http://classics.mit.edu...
[2] http://shakespeare.mit.edu...
[3] http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au...
askbob

Con

On the whole knowledge is generally worthless. Had my opponent said relevant knowledge has inherent value, I would have agreed. Alas, he did not.

The daily minutia of a person in Russias life is knowledge that is completely worthless for me because i do not gain any utility from obtaining it.

Perhaps one of the most cumbersome processeses most humans face is the need to sort information that is actually pertinent.

Rather than quoting the words of philosophers and attempting to use their words for my argument, I will make an analogy.

Imagine knowledge is like an email inbox. My opponent is saying that the entire inbox including the junk box with 600 emails about viagra is valuable. I am saying only the pertinent emails are valuable. Since there is more worthless and irrelevant knowledge than there is relevant knowledge, on the whole knowledge has no inherent value.

TL;DR

1. Only relevant knowledge has value (common knowledge)
2. There is more irrelevant knowledge than relevant knowledge (common knowledge)
3. Knowledge on the whole is irrelevant (deduction)
4. Knowledge on the whole has no value (transitive)

Debate Round No. 2
CGBSpender

Pro

I thank my opponent for his point.

I will assume that my opponent concedes my arguments as there have been no rebuttals offered. The point that some knowledge is useless will be addressed in a few ways.

Using my opponent's example of Viagra, assuming it is a genuine ad (because otherwise it would not be knowledge) than perhaps it has no utility at this time, but there is nothing to say it will not at a later date. On the other hand, suppose you are not male, well I imagine the people sending you the e-mails are making money off of it. In other words, they have just presented you with a job opportunity. This seems farfetched but I return to my second point that if you know how to utilize something than it has utility. Even the fact that there are a superfluous number of e-mails helps one realize their e-mail defences are too weak against spam, or that the Viagra industry is highly active and would offer a good job. This is also taking into consideration that utility isn't even part of the accepted definition of value, this is only a comment on the internal inconsistencies of the analogy and argument.

As for the example of the minute details of a Russian's life, this might be the difference between a good passage in a Nobel Prize winning book and an offensive piece of Cold War propaganda. One might say that if a person is not writing a novel about Russia than what difference does it make? The point is that a person could write a novel about Russia now and do a better job of it. If every bit of knowledge offers nothing else (and I have shown without rebuttal that it offers much else) it offers opportunity.

My opponent's argument seems to rely on the idea that "everyday utility" is the same thing as value, but nowhere in the definition that both debaters have accepted are the words "everyday" or "utility" present.

Let conclude let us break down what I have said as a simple response:
"1. Only relevant knowledge has value (common knowledge)"
R1.Any knowledge can be made to be relevant
R2. Nothing in the agreed upon definition of value requires "relevance" per se

"2. There is more irrelevant knowledge than relevant knowledge (common knowledge)
3. Knowledge on the whole is irrelevant (deduction)
4. Knowledge on the whole has no value (transitive)"
R1. Fallacy of composition the characteristics of the parts are not necessarily the characteristics of the whole. Even if it were true that: irrelevant knowledge exists, there is more of it than relevant knowledge, and the irrelevant knowledge does not have value, none of this this would deductively guarantee that knowledge on the whole is irrelevant and by extension without inherent value.
askbob

Con

Utility - the quality of being of practical use

"I will assume that my opponent concedes my arguments as there have been no rebuttals offered. The point that some knowledge is useless will be addressed in a few ways."


You assume wrong then as you reached no logical conclusions. Instead you rattled of lengthily about Kant and Shakespeare I could only discern the following arguments:

1. Knowledge is useful in making decisions
2. Life is a series of long decisions
3. Thus knowledge has relevant value

Argument: Only relevant knowledge is useful in making decisions.

1. Knowledge gains things that bring utility
2. These things could not happen without knowledge
3. Therefore knowledge brings utility

Argument: Only relevant knowledge gains things that bring utility

1. There is no downside to possessing knowledge

Argument:

There are many services that are free with ads which allow paid versions without ads
This business model is successful and many people pay to remove ads
thus it is clear they receive a negative utility from the ads as they are willing to sacrifice money (equal to the amount of negative utility) to remove those ads
Thus they retain a negative utility from the knowledge in those ads


"but there is nothing to say it will not at a later date"


A clear logical fallacy if there ever was one:

Argument To The Future: arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point.

Even the fact that there are a superfluous number of e-mails helps one realize their e-mail defences are too weak against spam, or that the Viagra industry is highly active and would offer a good job.

All irrelevant information


This is also taking into consideration that utility isn't even part of the accepted definition of value

value is a synonym for utility?

"1. Only relevant knowledge has value (common knowledge)"
R1.Any knowledge can be made to be relevant
R2. Nothing in the agreed upon definition of value requires "relevance" per se


My opponent clearly does not understand the definition of value. If I had a pile of garbage, would I value it because it has the potential of decomposing into soil which can be sold 500 years later as high quality manure? No. Humans clearly do not value garbage as it is denoted by the word "garbage" and is cast aside. Another instance of humans paying to get rid of something they do not value.


R1. Fallacy of composition the characteristics of the parts are not necessarily the characteristics of the whole.


lol if you're going to say that it's fallacy of composition then you are actually going to have to show where the syllogism fails

Even if it were true that: irrelevant knowledge exists, there is more of it than relevant knowledge, and the irrelevant knowledge does not have value, none of this this would deductively guarantee that knowledge on the whole is irrelevant and by extension without inherent value.


A statement with absolutely no backing? I showed how most of the minutia from every day lives lacks value, spam lacks value, advertisements lack value. In fact they give negative value as most people pay to get rid of them.

You attempted to say that irrelevant information can be made relevant? Well of course it has the ability to be relevant, and it only gains value when it becomes relevant and not until that point in time. It's quite clear that there is only a small body of relevant information in most peoples lives that holds value. Otherwise there is a massive body of irrelevant information of which we cannot use that has no value to us.


1. The human mind can only hold a fixed amount of information
2. Current estimates of brain capacity range from 1 to 1000 terabytes
(http://www.sizes.com...)(http://www.moah.org...)
3. There is larger amount of data available than the human mind can posess which is constantly increasing.
4. Therefore brain space is at a premium, and while the knowledge may possess value in the future, it is irrelevant until that point in time and thus lacking vaue.

Debate Round No. 3
CGBSpender

Pro

I thank my opposition for his rebuttals.
"…you reached no logical conclusions. Instead you rattled of lengthily about Kant and Shakespeare I could only discern the following arguments…"

Firstly, my opponent has ignored the fact that I also "rattled" on "lengthily" about Plato stating his logical conclusion that knowledge has an inherent value that comes from its consistency and certainty. This cannot be denied as being a logical conclusion (even if one believes it to be a wrong one).

1)The definition of utility
"value is a synonym for utility?"
Much of my opponent's argument revolves around the illicitly persuasive definition of utility. Utility and value are not at all synonymous unless you subscribe to a utilitarian way of thinking or a similar school. Either way, value is utility is a debate in itself and cannot simply be accepted as synonymous with value, when a definition has already been put forth and accepted in this debate. A good example of how utility and value differ is that of art. Many would say that the value of art has absolutely nothing to do with utility. This view is taken to its limits in the famous Oscar Wilde quote "all art is useless" [1].
Mr. Wilde continued his work in art and never followed this quote with na "art is without value". Furthermore, something so many dedicate their life to can hardly be called "unimportant". In fact, art is present throughout history and few would argue that it couldn't be described as important (an accepted synonym to value).
[1] http://www.artquotes.net...

2)Confusing the Median with the Message
"thus it is clear they receive a negative utility from the ads as they are willing to sacrifice money (equal to the amount of negative utility) to remove those ads
Thus they retain a negative utility from the knowledge in those ads"
This argument is based entirely on the fallacy of division. The fact that the whole has a certain attribute does not mean its parts do. Just because the ads have a negative utility does not mean the knowledge contained therein has a negative utility. This is easily demonstrable we need simply ask why people will pay to have them removed. Is it because they wish they did not know how much Viagra costs? No, it is generally because the ads offer a distraction, or make pages load slower, or because they are repetitive and obnoxious. No one pays to have the information removed from their head. It is the other qualities of ads that offer a negative utility.
A similar mistake is made in the argument that humans throw away garbage despite its potential for good quality manure. All this proves is that knowledge is in fact optional. People do not have to act on the fact that garbage is potentially very important for our agricultural system. Indeed, if they do throw the garbage out it is because they know it will begin to smell and be unpleasant. This is as much a knowledge claim as using it for manure. They value the absence of garbage because they know that if garbage were there it would be a lot less pleasant. The garbage itself is not valued, but all of these facts are at least implicitly valued as people use them to make such decisions as whether or not to keep garbage.

3)Just an Example
"Even the fact that there are a superfluous number of e-mails helps one realize their e-mail defences are too weak against spam, or that the Viagra industry is highly active and would offer a good job.

All irrelevant information"

This information is a bit unclear, but not irrelevant I am simply showing that the assertion that these ads offer no value is false. Referring back to the argument that any knowledge in conjunction with knowledge of benefit leads to value, it is shown here that it is possible to derive value from even the seemingly most annoying and "irrelevant information"

4)Fallacy of Composition
I will restate where my opponent's syllogism fails:
"2. There is more irrelevant knowledge than relevant knowledge (common knowledge)
3. Knowledge on the whole is irrelevant (deduction) 4. Knowledge on the whole has no value (transitive)"

My opponent asserts that there is knowledge that is irrelevant. He then claims that all knowledge is irrelevant. Even if it is accepted that irrelevant knowledge is possible (which I have refuted) than it still relies on the implicit assumption that because parts of all knowledge are irrelevant all knowledge is irrelevant. The second assertion is that irrelevant knowledge, a part of all knowledge, is not valuable, therefore knowledge as a whole is not valuable. The premise that more knowledge is irrelevant than relevant does not bridge this gap, it still relies on the implicit assumption that the characteristic of the majority of parts is necessarily ascribed to the whole. I hope I have satisfied my opponent's request.

5)A Point in Time (the audience will soon realize this is an irresistible though subtle pun)
"it only gains value when it becomes relevant and not until that point in time. It's quite clear that there is only a small body of relevant information in most peoples lives that holds value. Otherwise there is a massive body of irrelevant information of which we cannot use that has no value to us."

My opponent concedes in this same paragraph states that all of this "irrelevant information" can be made relevant. It is then said that "there is a massive body of irrelevant information of which we cannot use…". This is a direct contradiction which helps to illustrate why time is not an issue in value. Firstly, he states that relevant information is useful. He then states all irrelevant information can be made relevant. Therefore what he is stating by proxy is that all irrelevant information can be useful. How can this "massive body" be of no use and useful at the same time? It cannot. The quality of being valuable the quality of offering opportunity is within the knowledge at all times, it is only realized at a specific time. Stating that value is inserted at the line where it is "made useful" is an arbitrary line that is difficult to outline and offers new problems to my opponent's argument. At what point is it made useful? Is it when one realizes that they can use it? Because surely it was useful beforehand and simply not used. Is it made useful at the point in which it is used? Are hammers only useful when someone is using a hammer? No, it is an inherent quality. Similarly, value is an inherent quality in knowledge, not solely because it is useful, but because it at all times offers the potential to become important.

6)Selectivity
I agree fully that the human mind must be selective. How can a human know what knowledge is best to have without exploring the knowledge that is not as valuable? All knowledge must be explored to truly have the brain filled with the best knowledge to have. You cannot say that a thing has a quality i.e. irrelevance until you know and judge that thing. What's more the greater value of one thing does not deprive value entirely from another thing. It only lessens it.
I concede that "there is nothing to say it will not at a later date" is a fallacy and I thank my opponent for his correction".

In conclusion, an effective refutation of all point brought up in my opponent's last round has been offered and all points from previous rounds of pro have been affirmed. I thank my opponent for this debate and await his closing remarks eagerly.
askbob

Con

"My opponent concedes in this same paragraph states that all of this "irrelevant information" can be made relevant. It is then said that "there is a massive body of irrelevant information of which we cannot use…". This is a direct contradiction which helps to illustrate why time is not an issue in value.

How is it a contradiction at all? Can the information become relevant? Yes. Will most of it become relevant? No. There is no contradiction and is clearly a ploy by my oponent to affirm his flimsy point that because information has the potential to be made relevant, then it has value. This is incorrect as most of the information will never be made relevant as humans have a finite lifespan and knowledge is increasingly becoming infinite.


:Firstly, he states that relevant information is useful. He then states all irrelevant information can be made relevant.


It can be made relevant, of course. The facts about a man in russias life can be made relevant if I decide to spontaneously hop a plane and go meet the said individual. Can I do this with everyone before I die? No. Could the fact about mars be made relevant? Yes, someone could ask me about Mars. Does that mean that someone will definetly ask me about mars? No.

Therefore what he is stating by proxy is that all irrelevant information can be useful. How can this "massive body" be of no use and useful at the same time? It cannot.

Uh yes it can? Just because something can be useful doesn't mean it is useful. The massive body of knowledge is useless. All of it can be made useful. Only a small portion will ever be made useful in a lifetime.



The quality of being valuable the quality of offering opportunity is within the knowledge at all times,

The quality of offering future benefit is possible. The probability of all knowledge offering future benefit is low due to the large amount of data and the lifespan of humans. Because of this low probability knowledge is only useful/valuable/offering utility when it is used.

Stating that value is inserted at the line where it is "made useful" is an arbitrary line that is difficult to outline and offers new problems to my opponent's argument. At what point is it made useful? Is it when one realizes that they can use it? Because surely it was useful beforehand and simply not used. Is it made useful at the point in which it is used? Are hammers only useful when someone is using a hammer?

It is only useful when it is being used as was previously stated. Hammers are only useful when being used. If I have a hammer, but am in a coma. The hammer is useless to me as I do not have a use for it.

No, it is an inherent quality. Similarly, value is an inherent quality in knowledge, not solely because it is useful, but because it at all times offers the potential to become important."

This has been clearly proven wrong in the above analogy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opponent has made lengthy summarizations of irrelevant that do not further his conclusion. His arguments are riddled with red herrings which seek to divert the attention of this debate elsewhere. The crux of my opponents knowledge is useful even if it i not ever used merely because it has the potential to be used. This has been refuted multiple times especially in his equation of a hammer being inherently useful with knowledge being inherently useful. Something is useful only when it is used. Thus the definition of useful.

Furthermore something is valuable only when it is valued. Large quantities of data are not valued by the populous as I have given numerous examples of.

My opponent has not proven his resolution and unfortunately made me waste a ton of time reading nonsensical summaries and misinterpreted quotations from poets and shakespeare.

Vote Con

Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by justino 6 years ago
justino
>I deny that it is possible that a person would kill themselves for no reason at all. We are biologically wired to keep ourselves alive, so to override those inclinations would require significant planning and reasoning. At the very wort, they must consciously decide to ignore reason and this must be for some reason as a human mind`s initial impulse is to provide reasons for things.

A person wouldn't have to kill him- or herself overtly. He or she could just decide to no longer remain alive, which in effect would lead to a person's death by dehydration or another natural cause. It would take no planning at all really. Just one decision would have to be made, which itself could be made on intuition.

>Life is one of the purposes knowledge serves, but even if it didn`t, knowledge would be valuable in and of itself because it could effectively be put at the service of anything.

To be a value *to a person*, then achieving or not achieving that value must make some difference *to that person*. Otherwise, it cannot be value *to that person*. In any and all cases, those things knowledge could "be put at the service of" are only possible if one is alive.

>A piece of knowledge does not have to have value to someone for it to be valuable. This is the difference between subjective and inherent value.

Of value to whom if there is no valuer? If something can be of value to one person and not another, then value is no inherent in the thing itself. That does not necessarily imply subjectivism either, only that value is context-specific. Subjectivism is the idea that the standard of value or values by which actions are evaluated is determined by each subject. Another possibility is that the standard by which those circumstances (or contexts) are evaluated can be objective, as in based on the nature of empirical reality.
Posted by CGBSpender 6 years ago
CGBSpender
I deny that it is possible that a person would kill themselves for no reason at all. We are biologically wired to keep ourselves alive, so to override those inclinations would require significant planning and reasoning. At the very wort, they must consciously decide to ignore reason and this must be for some reason as a human mind`s initial impulse is to provide reasons for things.

I think you`re proposing that value is at the service of life. This is not inherent value than. Life is one of the purposes knowledge serves, but even if it didn`t, knowledge would be valuable in and of itself because it could effectively be put at the service of anything.

A piece of knowledge does not have to have value to someone for it to be valuable. This is the difference between subjective and inherent value. The knowledge of why they killed themselves might very well be valuable to anyone who knew the person, or that same reason might be valuable to someone else considering suicide. You don`t need to know the particulars of the person to know the reason in the abstract. (The last two lines were just examples of how it could be valuable).
Posted by justino 6 years ago
justino
>Ask yourself why they are choosing to no longer remain alive and that's the value of the knowledge.

It could be for no reason at all, which I concede would be highly peculiarly. More to the point, *once* a person has chosen no longer to remain alive, for whatever reason that might be, it is not necessary to have any value at all — though it is possible for someone who has chosen to no longer remain alive to retain some values.
Posted by CGBSpender 6 years ago
CGBSpender
Ask yourself why they are choosing to no longer remain alive and that's the value of the knowledge. The point I was trying to make is that any choice requires a value claim (i.e. this is better than this) in order to explain why it was chosen and all value claims require a knowledge claim. The fact that value and knowledge, I concede, are inextricable only shows the inherent value in knowledge not "all knowledge". What I should have added is that no piece of information exists in a vacuum and so all knowledgde is valuable because to work towards value all of it is necessary. There is no choice you could outline that would exempt from this.
Posted by justino 6 years ago
justino
To pro, I understand that knowledge could be of value to a person who has chosen to die in a particular manner. But what value would knowledge or anything in fact be to a person who has simply chosen to no longer remain alive?
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
I'll accept the reasoning for the "TL;DR" and adjusted my vote accordingly.
Posted by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
The TL;DR was not directed at my opponent, but at my own argument in case people wanted to quickly find the entirety of my argument in a syllogism.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Conduct went to Pro because of the "TL:DR" that was made by Con. If Pro made his arguements in a solid brick, I could see the merit of that comment, but Pro did break his arguements out into different sections, and while, not perfectly appeasing to the eyes, was still fine enough that I bothered to read it.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
I find the new resolution much less abusive and to my liking. I shall enjoy reading this debate.
Posted by CGBSpender 6 years ago
CGBSpender
Assuming animate and non-animate objects can experience knowledge and/or value, what I am saying is that taken on a whole knowledge has value. I am not saying that all of its aspects must have value for the whole to have value, as that is the fallacy of composition. I'm not denying that all aspects of knowledge do have inherent value, just that it is irrelevant for the resolution.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Xenith967 6 years ago
Xenith967
CGBSpenderaskbobTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: it was a good debate but i firmly believe that knowledge is one of the most valuable resources on earth
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
CGBSpenderaskbobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed in that he allowed Con to change the resolution to something in which he could not defend. He should have stood to a difference between "knowledge" and "all knowledge." There is a difference between "cars have benefited society" and "all cars havebenefited society." Pro also should have pointed that when Con said, "Imagine knowledge is like an email inbox." Thatthe email in box is seperate from the emails themselves. More RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
CGBSpenderaskbobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the obligation to make a clear resolution, and apparently intended to contrast "knowledge" with "true belief." However, Con's interpretation was the more likely one. Con's persuasive argument was that "potential value" is not the same as "value." Any kind of trash could have value in particular circumstances; that doesn't make t valuable now. I gave Con the S
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
CGBSpenderaskbobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: "Utility and value are not at all synonymous unless you subscribe to a utilitarian way of thinking or a similar school. Either way, value is utility is a debate in itself and cannot simply be accepted as synonymous with value, when a definition has already been put forth and accepted in this debate." - true, weak response to relevancy though 1/3