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

Practical knowledge is more important than bookish knowledge

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/31/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,947 times Debate No: 75984
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Practical knowledge is very very important than bookish knowledge . The one doing the business will be far more better than the one studying how to do in the books .


I interpret this to mean, my opponent is saying that knowledge that comes from experience is superior than knowledge that comes from book, theory, advice etc...

While I don't doubt the importance of both, I think at the very least the knowledge which comes from books is equal to or superior than the knowledge from experience.

Nobody wants a doctor who uses experience as his teacher and throws away theory or book knowledge, just as nobody wants a doctor who only has book knowledge but given the choice, people prefer the person fresh out of medical school than the guy who has learned heart surgery by experience.

Book knowledge is good in many respects. It allows you to learn from the experiences of others. Human knowledge is largely transmitted through books, though some can only be learned through osmosis and experience. I would prefer the doctor who has the experience of a thousand teachers he can draw from, which he has read in books, to the doctor who only has his own experience to draw on.

This isn't only relevant to medicine. Surely the mathematician can learn more through books and perform more advanced calculations than the one who only has the experience of counting to draw on. Surely we'd rather NASA use the data collected before them to send a man to space than to build a rocket from scratch and try to do things strictly based on experience they and they alone had.

Did our ancestors die in vain? Do we allow their knowledge to be erased and just depend on our own experience. The technological age we live in is a result of accumulated knowledge, had mankind relied merely on experience for everything, we'd still be cavemen, having to learn how to do everything from scratch, every single time a new person is born and an old person dies.

My opponent asks that we spit on the grave of those who have written their hard earned knowledge down for us to draw from, but I say we should move forward holding the hands of the dead. We should carry their knowledge forward and therefore give them eternal life.
Debate Round No. 1


Oh no no my friend I don't want to spit on those who have written books. And first of all practical knowledge Is gained by doing that particular thing and not on the basis of somebody else's experience . I hope I am clear.
Coming back to the point .
Reasons why practical knowledge is better than bookish knowledge -
1. Does not require mugging up
2. Knowledge retains in mind
3. Develops a better understanding.
Just to make point no 4 clear . Note: here by practical knowledge I mean the education or the knowledge gained by the student by practicing something like some activities or experiments etc
4. We all know practice makes a man perfect. Eg go on reading a guide book for new language without speaking that language at all and you won't see progress . Speak that language daily and you will see the improvement . And u can learn any language by conversing with the people who know .
5. Involves application and deals with real life situations.
Eg . Learning about facts and theories are not really of any use unless you are aware of their application in real life.
Sir Isaac Newton gave the theory of gravity after he EXPERIENCED it by noticing Apple falling down . You cannot explain gravity without dropping a thing .
6. Also practicals are also very interesting . Cummon yaar don't field trips,projects,experiments interest you more than books,assignments and lectures ?
7. Interactive education creates a deeper impact .
I cannot study chemistry more than 1 hour but yes I can easily spend an hour in chemistry lab experimenting .
Students studying the engine in books will not create an impact as much as a live engine will do .
For more you can visit
All the theories have come from people after they have done the experiments .
History was written by people who had experienced it .
So I think students will be more keen in gaining education by learning it in a practical way !!


My opponent only has two rounds to argue so in fairness to my opponent I will skip this round. He skipped his first round and really didn't argue, so I'm more than happy to be fair and do him this favor.
Debate Round No. 2


Drashti05 forfeited this round.


Remember voters. I win this debate if I have proven that book knowledge is equally as good as practical knowledge. I can tell you they're at-least equally important, but book knowledge is more important, because you can learn several lifetimes worth of information, where as practical knowledge actually only creates a mere lifetime worth of information. They're at least equally important though, since you can't have one without another. So voters can give me the win based on that alone. However I will take this point by point.

Bare assertion, not explained. I'm not even sure what mugging up means.
Knowledge also remains in the knowledge through book learning. I still remember when Katniss Everdeen from the hunger games, volunteered as tribute in place of her little sister. I remember complicated topics on a variety of subjects, merely from book knowledge. I admit I could sharpen my knowledge of psychology a bit by observing it personally, but I couldn't have figured out complicated portions of it, such as all of Jung's archetypes without reading, nor can you merely practice calculus and learn it, without a book. Though certainly the opposite is possibe.
It doesn't create a better understanding than book knowledge. You can try to fold an origami penguin as much as you want and you'll never gain as clear of an understanding as going to an origami book, where you can build one without any practical experience ever.
Actually the best memory system I know of is with flash cards and seems to work better than learning through practice. Scientists haven't been able to find a better system for remembering things than the Leitner system to my knowledge. The system is as follows; "In this method flashcards are sorted into groups according to how well the learner knows each one in the Leitner's learning box. The learner tries to recall the solution written on a flashcard. If they succeed, they send the card to the next group. If they fail, they send it back to the first group. Each succeeding group has a longer period of time before the learner is required to revisit the cards."
Book knowledge also does the same thing. The difference is it draws from several lifetimes of experience instead of just one mere lifetime. Also the story of Newton discovering gravity by observing an apple fall is mythology. It's a good story, but no evidence suggest it happened. It's more likely he got his theories from books on theories as well as deep thought.
No, books interest me more. I can read a book or listen to a lecture at my convenience, but I have to wait for the dairy farm to open to learn how to milk a cow, and they may not one me in there learning, while they have stuff they need to get done.
Actually I can listen to a podcast or read a book while on a bus or in a doctors office, time that would be wasted waiting anyway, where as practical knowledge can't be gained the same way.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Theunkown// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Arguments, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision:Pro made weak arguments/unsupported assertions and forfeited.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments point not explained. Pro did make an argument i.e. it was not a full forfeit. Awarding conduct for a forfeit is valid but unless a debater neglected to make an argument, the argument point needs to be explained.
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
What I meant was that you were getting too extreme. Some rhetoric is fine, but this was way too much.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
He doesn't have to. My references are stylistic and rhetoric. If you want to be good at debate, perhaps you should look at how to use rhetoric appropriately.
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Still, you said he said to spit on graves. He didn't or even hint to that.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
When looking at what is more important, it may be good to entertain the ideal of which would work better if the other was not around.
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
You said that pro said we should spit on graves. He only thought that practical knowledge is more important, not that bookish is not.
Posted by Nivek 1 year ago
"Bookish Knowledge"
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
How so?
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Con is getting carried away...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were given essentially zero impact, meaning that Pro has failed to affirm the resolution. Merely stating reasons which *could* affirm the resolution does not demonstrate that they *do*. For example, "Does not require mugging up" is a link but it has zero impact. Why do I care that mugging up isn't required? How much weight does this point have? Con wins by default due to Pro giving no real impact to any of his/her arguments. Conduct to Con for Pro's round forfeit.