The Central Problem with the World Has Always Been, that People Know Too Much
Debate Rounds (3)
I as Pro am fully intent on exposing an immediate truth that must be known, embraced, and submitted too.
NOTE: Notice I said "truth" not a fact. We each have our own truths(dreams, understandings, etc.) but not our own facts . My limited understanding is that facts can be observed and measured in reality. I am fully intent on making Con, the readers of this debate, and the voters of this debate to surrendering to the truth presented to us.
The most enlightened people are the reason we have the comforts that are often expected of us. Smart people were always and will continue to be the driving force of human progression. Knowledge is expressed in everything: We all type in the English language and we understand it. Rapid advances in networking, computer science and engineering have made the Internet possible, and with that, online debating. Medicine has reduced the infant mortality rate drastically in nations where people have access to medical facilities and the life expectancy is at it's highest point in history. This is all because of people that were smart.
As Con, I will attempt to demonstrate that the knowledgeable people are among the most important people and why they should be commended, not denounced, and that knowing "too much" has never been a threat to the world.
I am Pro so I have a goal to meet the resolution. I will respond to some of Con's claims but not all since I have a limited characters to create my own arguments as well.
My opponent claims that smart people are always the driving force of progression. My opponent doesn't realize human progression inherently can not be determined by "smart" people but only by ignorant people. It is only in the recognition of ignorance do we pursue more knowledge. For example, if Western European countries weren't searching for a faster way to arrive at the Far East and India, would Columbus have "discovered" America? If people had not realized that we should find faster ways of communicating, would the telephone, radio, cell phone, e-mail, and Instant Messenger ever been invented?
In order to know more and study more one must admit one is ignorant. That is the very point of studying subjects and testing new theories because we know very little. To claim that the "knowledgeable" advance the world is to claim those who know a lot have advanced the world. This is simply not true, only those who understand they are ignorant attempt to test new theories, try new subjects, and search for better methods. If someone is knowledgeable, why would they test anything new? After all, they are knowledgeable.
1. Admission of Ignorance Has Advanced the World
Socrates-"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."
What is knowledge? If my skull was cracked open, would you see what I know? Maybe if my chest was cut open and a physician gripped my heart, would anyone truly find out what I know? Knowledge is intangible. Those who are "knowledgeable" is relative to the perspective of each person. We only study and begin to learn more in order fill our voids of ignorance. But these voids of ignorance only exist for those who understand, recognize, and accept they are ignorant. To those who are knowledgeable, there is no point to learning more since think they are knowledgeable already. Therefore, those who think they are knowledgeable are incapable of advancing the world since there is nothing to be studied or learned since they know so much about it already. We will not study HIV/AIDs or any other severe disease if we claim we are knowledgeable on the subject. HIV/AIDs is only studied more out of admission of ignorance on the subject.
mineben256 forfeited this round.
mineben256 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.