Knowledge is better than brute strength. This is true in variety of ways. If you have knowledge and your not strong you can most likely use your knowledge to defeat a stronger opponent. You can also use what you know to confuse manipulate and conquer those who are not as smart but strong. Humans for example are not always strong physically. Compared to the average creature on this world humans are weak we are soft not always physically strong meaning we break easy. Even without strength we are at the top of the food chain because we are smart enough to use our surrounding and make tools. Also we learn from our mistakes faster and better than the average creature on this world. This only goes to show that knowledge can beat brute strength. Knowledge is also helpful because it makes life easier. If you think about some of the richest people in the world didn't get where they are based on pure brute strength. The used knowledge to create something that makes life easier and better. Also when your smart you can convince or manipulate which ever you prefer those who are strong to do the things you need done. How often do you see some one smart doing the hefty lifting. They have workers, henchmen, what ever you prefer to do those things for them. There is also a quote saying knowledge is power where do you think that quote came from. NO it didn't come from someone who was the strongest person in the world. At least not physically. Knowledge is better than pure brute physical strength
Knowledge is not better than brute strength; knowledge is pretty useless without it.
Take Stephen Hawking, for example. Pretty knowledgable guy, right? Probably smarter than the people who take care of him. But that's the thing: He requires the strength of his caretakers to keep him fed and hydrated. Were it not for the strength of people who love him, all the knowledge that Hawking has would be useless.
Yes it's true that Stephen Hawking does not have much physical strength, however if you look it up his net worth is about twenty million dollars. That's basically twenty million dollars for being smart. He not only can afford to have the extra help but got there simply by being intelligent. This means that he got far on only his brains. He didn't have much else to rely on. This only goes to show that knowledge is more important that strength because even if you can't do things on you own you can tell people to do them and if sound smart there a high chance they will do it. Also people want to be surrounded by other smart people. Because if you think about it no one want to be around someone who is not as smart because in human nature people think not so smart people pull them down. I don't say this to be rude but people who are intelligent make you look better. However people who are strong but not intelligent they too rely on those that are smart to help them out a little bit. strength only brings you so far intelligence make the path from there.
I will admit that strength does have a certain charm to it. However amazing brute strength is knowledge is still superior. First in regards to what you said about Stephen Hawking how often do people go around using strength to injure disabled people. Next brute strength implies that you have strength to an amazing point. It means you have strength in a force greater than normal. So would you rather be incredibly intelligent or have amazing strength. If you can't have both which would be better. The ability to think for yourself and know things and do things that other can't because your smart or to be able to lift things. Both have the ability to deteriorate, but if you are left without your strength but with your knowledge would you be able to survive. The answer is most likely but if you are left without a mind and without proper thought and knowledge what would happen then. You would have some trouble. Knowledge is a power and strength in its own right. So what would people rather be that's the question. People often wish they were stronger. How do you become stronger. You know your not as strong as you want to be and you know that you can do better. The fact that you know those things. That's knowledge. Also there are machines that can literally do the heavy lifting and all I have to do is be smart enough to know how to use them. Once again knowledge is superior.
“would you rather be incredibly intelligent or have amazing strength. If you can't have both which would be better.”
That isn't what this debate is about. It's not about a scenario in which you can only have one; it's about whether or not knowledge is better than strength. I only need to prove that strength is at least equal to win!
“Both have the ability to deteriorate, but if you are left without your strength but with your knowledge would you be able to survive.”
As babies, we have strength but not knowledge. It requires strength to nurse from your mother; you don't need knowledge (nor do you have it) to do this, because you have instinct which takes care of that for you. Same goes for pretty much everything else a baby does. They don't need knowledge to hold their breath under water, either; it's instinct for them. They just need strength to keep their mouth closed.
“Knowledge is a power and strength in its own right.”
It's pretty implied from the posing of the resolution that we are referring to physical strength. Else, you'd be arguing against yourself.
“People often wish they were stronger. How do you become stronger. You know your not as strong as you want to be and you know that you can do better. The fact that you know those things. That's knowledge.”
You don't need knowledge to increase strength. The more you use your strength, the more it will grow, whether you have knowledge of it or not.
“Also there are machines that can literally do the heavy lifting and all I have to do is be smart enough to know how to use them.”
The basic parts of those machines were built by strength. They couldn't even exist without it much less be used.
Reasons for voting decision: The Hawking argument wins, as much as I'd rather have a Stephen Hawkings than a Hulk. A small note is con did not need to prove brute strength is better, merely that it is at least equal. Conduct for forfeit. ... "Men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them." - George Orwell
Reasons for voting decision: They had both really good arguments, pro did forfeit. When con started off with the Stephen hawking argument, that really set the bar high and pro just couldn't match it. Good debate!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.