The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Knowledge is corruption.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,582 times Debate No: 74811
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




The Bible says it, the more you know, the more corrupt you get.
Technology is corruption and demise. Chernobyl anyone?
It's good to not know all the details, ALWAYS.


I accept.

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.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1


You got it all wrong, get a glossary and erudite yourself betwixt the definition of the word "knowledge".

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.

Vote PRO.


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.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 3 years ago
@Kozu: That a fallacy of equivocation :P
Posted by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 3 years ago
Lol, my goodness...

Busy night, Aaron?
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
*ignore the Espera removal. That was on a different debate, although good luck trying to tell given how generic it is.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: KroneckerDelta // Moderator action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no discernible arguments, rather (essentially) just stated their premise as fact. Con did not do a great job of countering Pro's claim (an example where knowledge did NOT lead to corruption would have been nice) however Con DID explain why Pro's statements were not valid arguments--thus Pro was left without a single argument claiming Pro's premise.

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain S&G. The argument point explanation is also too generic.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: Espera // Moderator action: Removed<

6 points to Con (everything but conduct). Reasons for voting decision: While Pro did put a nice effort, their position was flawed from the beginning and in the end they quite simply failed to prove their point in any manner. They also need to work on flow, grammar, and paragraph creation. So I have to go with Con on most of the points given.

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain sources (entirely). Too generic on arguments: this could be said of any debate.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago

Damned 1988 character limit. So reminiscent of that blond joke about math.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
I've never (to my knowledge) had a vote removed before, always thought there would be some type of notice about it (not to say prior to removal). Once I was warned for a full forfeit debate, to which I wrongly assigned more than conduct...

I'm in an odd dilemma, I don't want to be comparable to certain mental rejects who complained endlessly about ME deleting their freedom of speech. It's also rightful payback, given the number of votes I report. However, I have the urge to critique the criticism...

Ragnar: "Con categorized pro's fallacies, leaving pro's case with no legs to stand on (not to mention pro never trying to reach minimal BoP). Pro claiming con got it all wrong, without giving reason, was neither an adequate defense nor rebuttal."
Bluesteel: "...This RFD doesn't say what the fallacies were, how Con proved they were fallacies, why this mattered in the debate. This RFD could be copy-pasted to any debate, and someone could still claim it was relevant. An RFD that is so generic that you could say it about any debate..."

Given the multiple content specific references to this debate, I fail to see how it is generic enough to apply to more than 1% of debates. However, technically a ten page detailed analysis of this debate could also be claimed to be relevant to every other debate (as funny as that would be).

I viewed this as a pretty firm no contest debate, to which my RFD was already greater effort than the instigator seemed to put in (which I admit does not guarantee the validity of a vote). Granted due to my education I tend to assume the most basic fallacies are common knowledge, without need for a walk-through. When someone says "The Bible says it," without even saying where in the bible, and their opponent answers "appeal to authority," I do not need to be walked through a logic course for why the first person hasn't yet won.

None of this is to say my vote meets the current DDO standards, clearly by it's removal it does not. Just food for
Posted by Lee001 3 years ago
Wow...why the hell do we have to explain S&G?? Isn't it obvious?
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>BootswithDefer // Moderator action: Removed<

6 points to Con (everything but S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Pro could have used way better arguments! This is a great topic, but poorly worded and very poorly argued. Good job Con on presenting a great case.

[*Reason for removal*] Too generic on arguments. No explanation for sources, conduct.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Phenenas // Moderator action: Removed<

5 points to Con (S&G, arguments, conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is absurd. He doesn't even have one. Not to speak out against the Bible, but he could have cited it far, far better.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Too generic on arguments. (2) No explanation for conduct, S&G.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
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 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.