The Instigator
DarkerThanBlack
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
xxXChelseaXxx
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Negligence is the source of stupidity

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 954 times Debate No: 33181
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

DarkerThanBlack

Pro

So, hey, here goes my first debate. Ultimately, the question is: What is Stupid? I posted this on a different site, so I'm just going to repeat/copy & paste what I said there:
Stupid is following things that don't make sense to you, but insisting on following it.

Stupid is avoiding knowledge and the possibility to learn things. When someone who isn't the brightest strives to learn more, I don't believe them to be stupid. People that don't want to think about things and just ignore/disregard knowledge are stupid.

Stupid is priding yourself in reading a thousand books, when you didn't gain anything from them at all.

Stupid is accepting things the way they are and not thinking about how they could be improved and how you can help improve/change them.

Stupid is closing your mind to any other possibility other than the one you've chosen.

In a way, we are all stupid, just some of us are not as stupid as others. We are all intelligent in some sort of way, just some of us are more intelligent than others.

So yeah, please excuse me if I do something in etiquette, as I am new to this site. Thanks. (I don't really know if this can be considered a debate, more a conversation, I'll see how it turns out.)
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

Hello Darkerthanblack,
Welcome to DDO -- we hope you stay awhile :"D

Anyway, I'll gladly debate/discuss this topic with you...

I'm essentially going to argue the inverse of your resolution, the inverse being: 'Stupidity is the source of negligence'.



Stupidity is the source of negligence

1. A lack of understanding causes us to act differently than if we had understanding
2. We may act differently (i.e. negligently) because of lack of understanding (stupidity)
3. Therefore, stupidity causes negligence


For example, I may not care about my cat being left outside because I see no reason to bring it inside. However, I see big, threatening dogs outside that will have access to my cat. Nevertheless, I do not call-
in the cat because I do not understand that the threatening dogs may maul my cat. Therefore, this is a negligent decision based on my stupidity.

Someone's negligence does not make you stupid, it is an indication of someone's stupidity.

I believe my argument engages and negates the resolution, but I will expand on it in later rounds if I see fit.



Seeing as this is also a discussion, I feel obliged to address my opponent's comments. Whilst I do not think they are pertinent to the resolution, I will address them anyway so as to create a discussion.

"Stupid is avoiding knowledge and the possibility to learn things. When someone who isn't the brightest strives to learn more, I don't believe them to be stupid. People that don't want to think about things and just ignore/disregard knowledge are stupid."

I would say this trends towards apathy rather than stupidity. Stupidity would be avoiding reading a book when you know that it has information that you could make use of.

"Stupid is priding yourself in reading a thousand books, when you didn't gain anything from them at all."

Perhaps you do not gain understanding from every book, but many people I know derrive intense pleasure from reading a well-written novel. This claim you make assumes that someone reads purely to gain understanding.

Stupid is accepting things the way they are and not thinking about how they could be improved and how you can help improve/change them.

I can't disagree with you here, but this is human nature. Humans are so often content with the norm because the abnormal is difficult. It is human nature to strive for comfort. Still, you could say human nature is stupid in this sense.

Stupid is closing your mind to any other possibility other than the one you've chosen.

Of course.

In a way, we are all stupid, just some of us are not as stupid as others. We are all intelligent in some sort of way, just some of us are more intelligent than others.

I think we are ultimately stupid because we are driven by emotional/instinctive factors, which themselves were formed through 'survival of the fittest' rather than rationality. I mean, why should we have to eat? Of course, the immediate response from nearly anyone would be to sustain life. But why do we have to sustain life? If the questions were to continue in this trend, the eventual answer would be 'because I feel like it' or 'that's the way it is'. We, as humans, are founded upon irrational principles, and this relfects in our decisions.





Debate Round No. 1
DarkerThanBlack

Pro

Alright, I would like to start with your first point: Stupidity is the source of negligence.
Concerning your first point, a lack of understanding does not always correlate with stupidity. We as humans have a lack of understanding of God and the universe, yet we still believe (or at least most of us) both exist. We do not exactly act differently, but perhaps more tentatively because of our lack of knowledge.

For example, and this is just theoretical, NASA scientist see a meteor that will soon pass Earth. They also report that at the very same time, there will be a astronomical aligning of some sort. What they do not know is that the meteor will explode at that moment and destroy Earth. What is seen here is more of a lack of knowledge, not from stupidity, as the knowledge is now gained and can be applied, even though it destroyed the earth.

Considering your position, I believe that it does not fit on a large enough scale. A person who is stupid may be able to understand the universe and all, but is not smart enough to apply the concept or gain knowledge, although they are not negligent to it at all. A stupid person can be negligent, but a negligent person is always stupid. Consider a student at a school. If they are negligent, they will see no value in being at school, nor value in the knowledge that they are supposed to be learning, rather, they choose to busy their minds doing meaningless, and often stupid, things. However, there may be a stupid, perhaps slow or mentally challenged is a more proper term, student who strives to learn but simply does not understand what is going on. I've actually meet a couple of people like that. Therefore, the latter student is not at all being negligent towards what is being taught, while the former is negligent towards all and does not, or will not, comprehend anything that comes towards them.

I would also like to quote something that you said: "Stupidity would be avoiding reading a book when you know that it has information that you could make use of." To me, you are almost confirming my point. The person is neglect the information, the book as well, hindering them from gaining anything from the books. While a stupid person may try to read the book for the sake of attempting to understand, a negligent person will, as you said, completely avoid it.

I'm just going to go down the row now. I understand your point about the books, as I enjoy certain type of fiction, I was implying that they book was made to teach something to the reader. If someone reads a book on integral calculus, while still trying to simple addition, while they may be able to read the whole book and claim that they read it, they did not gain anything of the sort information through that. Also, theme is a well known aspects of good books, including fiction and all genres. Theme is known as a unifying idea, image, or motif, repeated or developed throughout a work, generally a novel that teaches the reader something of moral, mental, or emotional value, probably more so moral than any other. This moral theme teaches the reader something, thereby allowing them to understand something they didn't comprehend beforehand. Even reading a sign teaches someone something specific, such as a speed limit sign teaches someone the speed limit in a certain area.

"Humans are so often content with the norm because the abnormal is difficult. It is human nature to strive for comfort. Still, you could say human nature is stupid in this sense."
Yep, no point in arguing idea if you agree. Very well said, I agree as well.... Well, perhaps not human nature, but society as of now. I can probably think of times where human nature was much more different and sophisticated.

On your final point, it is right in some aspects and wrong in others. Yes, humans are instinctive, but instinct is not always emotional. Considering the 16 personality types of Myers Briggs, eight of those types are logical and rational thinkers, meaning they choose to use logic over emotional response. Some types, groups of people, would want to save their friend in a fire, while a logical person would reason that the most likely situation is that both of you would die, so there is no reason to waste your life that way. Furthermore, the continuous questioning is not in all cases. As I have pointed out the logical thinkers, there would be a specific point at which one could not give an answer, rather than just a response that uses no actual thought. This also shows how the often named stupid society neglects thought, making them unintelligent at times.

Also, not all humans are based upon irrational thoughts. Obviously you and I are taking place in an intellectual debate, which uses rationale. Now, society as a whole may be based upon rampant emotional decisions, while each human may have their own preference, society now is often biased towards the more illogical thinking, giving humans the dim appearance we have now. The answers you provided for these people are more so generalizations of the population.
Seeing as you are taking place in a debate and question the legitimacy of society, as well as what people think, I would say that you are a logical thinker, as am I. If you disagree, please give a quick note as to why you do.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

Stupidity is the source of negligence

The argument in your first paragraph presumes that God exists. Since you've provided another argument that does not have this presumption, I'm going to address that.

"For example, and this is just theoretical, NASA scientist see a meteor that will soon pass Earth. They also report that at the very same time, there will be a astronomical aligning of some sort. What they do not know is that the meteor will explode at that moment and destroy Earth. What is seen here is more of a lack of knowledge, not from stupidity, as the knowledge is now gained and can be applied, even though it destroyed the earth."

A lack of understanding is slightly different from a lack of knowledge -- the two are not synonymous yet are not mutually exclusive either. Someone can have the right facts (knowledge) about something, but he or she may not be understanding why the facts are so (understanding). For example, a young student (say 6 years old) is taught that the Earth revolves around the Sun, yet will not understand the gravitational forces making this a fact. The young student has the knowledge, but not the understanding. My argument addresses a lack of understanding, not a lack of knowledge.

"Considering your position, I believe that it does not fit on a large enough scale. A person who is stupid may be able to understand the universe and all, but is not smart enough to apply the concept or gain knowledge, although they are not negligent to it at all."

In this instance, I would argue that there isn't understanding of the universe as the person cannot apply the concepts; a person may have knowledge of the universe, but not be able to apply the concepts because they do not have understanding.

"A stupid person can be negligent, but a negligent person is always stupid."

This is confusing cause and effect, which I think is the fundamental flaw of your argument. To demonstrate my point, a fire-fighter (the professional kind) puts out fires. However, putting out fires does not make a person a fire-fighter. Similarly, doing negligent things does not make a person stupid, rather, it is because someone is stupid that he or she does negligent things.


"Consider a student at a school. If they are negligent, they will see no value in being at school, nor value in the knowledge that they are supposed to be learning, rather, they choose to busy their minds doing meaningless, and often stupid, things. However, there may be a stupid, perhaps slow or mentally challenged is a more proper term, student who strives to learn but simply does not understand what is going on. I've actually meet a couple of people like that. Therefore, the latter student is not at all being negligent towards what is being taught, while the former is negligent towards all and does not, or will not, comprehend anything that comes towards them."

Again, confusing cause and effect is the major issue here.




This is the discussion part of this debate, as these points are not entirely relevant to the resolution. I will be digressing away from the resolution is some of my comments, but I believe that I have already addressed my opponent's arguments prior to this section.

"I would also like to quote something that you said: "Stupidity would be avoiding reading a book when you know that it has information that you could make use of." To me, you are almost confirming my point. The person is neglect the information, the book as well, hindering them from gaining anything from the books. While a stupid person may try to read the book for the sake of attempting to understand, a negligent person will, as you said, completely avoid it."

A stupid person can be negligent at the same time. I could easily replace the word "stupidity" with 'negligence'. We agree on the result that 'stupidity and negligence are often synonymous', it's that we don't agree on what causes what.

"I was implying that they book was made to teach something to the reader. If someone reads a book on integral calculus, while still trying to simple addition, while they may be able to read the whole book and claim that they read it, they did not gain anything of the sort information through that."

Yes, with non-fiction work, there are limitations relative to the subject. However, fiction is not bound by the constraints of authorial intent; once a novel is released, it is subject to the interpretation of all who read it, and because of this, a plethora of meanings are created.


"Also, theme is a well known aspects of good books, including fiction and all genres...Even reading a sign teaches someone something specific, such as a speed limit sign teaches someone the speed limit in a certain area."

The idea that morals can be taught through narrative does not sit well with me as fiction is not bound by such linear constraints. Sure, the author may have intended a certain moral to be the focus of the novel, but I think it is up the reader to respond to the novel however he or she chooses. Perhaps a philosophical discourse (say Immanuel Kant's or David Hume's works) is far more bound by what you speak of. Basically, I don't think objectivity (or even inter-subjectivity) applies to all written work. In other words, 'this novel talks about this and this' or 'you should get this from reading this' are phrases that makes me cringe.

"Yes, humans are instinctive, but instinct is not always emotional."

I said that, "I think we are ultimately stupid because we are driven by emotional/instinctive factors" (emotional/instinctive should really have an 'and or' in between). In light of this, I never made a point contrary to what you said.

"...there would be a specific point at which one could not give an answer, rather than just a response that uses no actual thought."

This is the point where I say that answer is based on instinct and or emotion. While decisions we make may have rational reasoning blended within, the foundation is either instinctive and or emotional.


"I would say that you are a logical thinker, as am I."

While we are using logic and rationale, it is not our basis. For example, I am using logic (at least trying) in this debate to understand the subject(s) in question. I am doing this to draw a conclusion on the subject. I am doing this so I can base my decisions off this conclusion. I am doing this so I can act rationally. I am wanting to act rationally so I can live my life in accordance to the truth. I want to do this because I believe this is the right thing to do (and bam, the emotional and or instinctive reason). There is no rational response I can give. I want to live my life in accordance to what I believe is the truth -- any justification of this will be circular in reasoning (because it is not based on reason). Apply the same process to something you do and see what the ultimate answer is.

In other words, ultimately, people use logic and rationale for reasons that are not logically or rational.

Debate Round No. 2
DarkerThanBlack

Pro

DarkerThanBlack forfeited this round.
xxXChelseaXxx

Con

Disappointing...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by xxXChelseaXxx 4 years ago
xxXChelseaXxx
No problem :)
Posted by DarkerThanBlack 4 years ago
DarkerThanBlack
I apologize for not posting another argument. I was really stressed this week and had multiple finals and AP exams to do, so the entire week was dedicated to studying. However, I would love to have another debate when I finally get some more time. I was actually hoping to respond, but, of course, I do have my priorities in check. Thank you for the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.