Knowledge is corruption.
Debate Rounds (2)
Technology is corruption and demise. Chernobyl anyone?
It's good to not know all the details, ALWAYS.
The burden of proof, in affirming a positive statement, is entirely on PRO. If he fails to prove this statement conclusively, you vote CON.
PRO says, "The Bible says it, the more you know, the more corrupt you get."
This is nothing more than an appeal to authority - and a terrible authority at that, given the many factual inaccuracies in the Bible (the Great Flood, the notion that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that snakes can talk, the many inconsistencies, such as with the creation story, etc.)
It is true that the more knowledgeable people are, the more they intend to reject dogma, like the Bible - but the Bible itself, or the counter-factual dogma, is what is corrupt because it deliberately places blinders on people and prevents them from thinking clearly.
PRO says, "Technology is corruption and demise. Chernobyl anyone?"
This is nothing but a bare assertion - and how could Chernobyl, possibly, serve as a stand-alon example for why technology, ipso facto, is corrupt? How can technology by itself serve as a proxy forknowledge?
PRO says, "It's good to not know all the details, ALWAYS."
PRO provides us with no reasons to accept this - in fact, not knowing all the details leads us to make stupid, uninformed decisions by definition.
Second, he is misdefining knowledge. Knowledge is a matter of degree - it NEVER requires that we know everything, because knowing everything is impossible.
Technology is made via the help of knowledge, is it not?
- Knowledge and greed.
If the bible places blinders on people, then all books do the same.
PRO insinuates that I don't know what "knowledge" means. Here's a definition from Google:
"facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."
This seems entirely consistent with what I said with respect to "knowing everything," and with my remarks on PRO's technology points. Those contentions are totally dropped - which is enough for you to vote CON.
PRO says, "Technology is made via the help of knowledge, is it not?"
This is true - technology, such as cell phones, computers (which PRO is using right now), and more which have made our lives better required knowledge; without knowledge, none of that would have been possible. The example of Chernobyl is utterly irrelevant, because knowledge could have prevented that calamity - i.e., LACK of knowledge or misuse of technology caused by lack of knowledge is the problem.
His point on greed is likewise absurd. What he calls greed - which is independent of knowledge itself, because knowledge need not lead to greed - we call capitalism. Acknowledging the potential pitfalls of capitalism, in spite of the gains it may yield us, is a function of KNOWLEDGE. PRO's point completely flips on its side.
PRO says, "If the bible places blinders on people, then all books do the same."
This point is completely ludicrous. The Bible is not, in the slightest, like "all other books." Other books do not make claims as utterly absurd as the Bible such as the ones I mentioned in the last round. Rather, they're rooted in facts and things that we can readily observe. Further, they - save for other religious texts - do not contain orders for how people ought to live their lives, or recommend violence for their sake of their God. In other words, there's no mandate and no deception. But even then PRO completely drops my main objection to his reference to the Bible, which was that he was using an appeal to authority - that applies universally to any book or to any person, even to books that are signifciantly more credible than the Bible.
As it stands, PRO hasn't in the slightest advanced his BOP.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took upon a huge onus probandi (burden of proof) on himself/herself, that meant they had to show, without ANY DOUBT, that knowledge is *corruption*. Pro merely constantly repeated themselves by restating the resolution in different means. Pro commits the fallacy of appeal to authority, and Con points out *why* the Bible is often factually inaccurate. A *single* example of failed or "corrupted" technology is not enough to assert that *all* technology is corrupt, thus leading to an apparent deviation by stating *knowledge* is "corrupt". Pro's random stated definitions of "greed" is irrelevant, and Pro *drops* the fact that the Bible is more factually inaccurate than other books. Pro's logically fallacious arguments and the fact that they drop many arguments gives the 3 arguments points to Con. S&G to Con, because Pro presents completely incoherent phrases such as "erudite yourself", but erudite is an adjective and not a verb. "Always" is unnecessarily capitalized. 4 points to Con.
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.