Watch This Debate
Report This Debate
Forward This Debate
Debate Comments
Bookmark This Page
Category: Education

Knowledge about the past is usefull to complete our knowledge of the world we live in

This debate began on Sunday, July 27, 2008, 8:20:40 AM Pacific Time.
Who Won This Debate?
 
Vote For alfie_alfred2000
11 Votes
 
Vote For CiRrO
12 Votes
 
 
Pro"In Favor"
The Instigator: alfie_alfred2000
alfie_alfred2000
Versus
Con"Against"
The Contender: CiRrO
CiRrO
 
 
Pro ~ Round 1

Knowledge of the past is as important as all the knowledge we are getting in our daily life.it is cause of this knowledge that we are able to develop our current knowledge to the next level.
 
Con ~ Round 1

I negate: knowledge about the past is usefull to complete our knowledge of the world we live in

My Reason for negation: Knowledge about the past is not just useful it is necessary. Thus I negate.

Contention I: Past knowledge is necessary.

To get to the point of knowledge now, we need past knowledge. If we did not, then all knowledge now would go backwards, and there would be no advancement. If we didn't learn about the wheel, then we would have no cars. If we didn't learn basic farming techniques, there would be no farming industry. The list goes on and on. To get to where we are now, then the past is necessary not just useful.


Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
 
Pro ~ Round 2

This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
 
Con ~ Round 2

Extend my arguments. ^^

Character length.....length, length, length, length, length, length, length, length, length, length, length, length
 
Pro ~ Round 3

This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time.
 
Con ~ Round 3

Extend my arguments.

[Voting Issues]

1) Contention I
2) Resolution is negated off of the premise that knowledge about the past is a necessity rather then just a utility.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
 
 

Member Comments (15)

Only members can post comments.

 
I have to agree with Zerosmelt here, necessary does not refute useful. It is possible to be both useful and necessary at the same time. PRO proved his case by claiming past knowledge help acquire current knowledge, a claim CON conceded.
2 Weeks Ago
Report It
 
He didn't have an argument. It was an assertion without warrant. Thus it is not an argument.
2 Weeks Ago
Report It
 
yes but you never refuted your opponents argument, as simple/naive as it may have been.
2 Weeks Ago
Report It
 
Remember, Pro has burden of proof. I didn't have to present anything really. Therefore, my opponent needed to prove, not me.
2 Weeks Ago
Report It
 
That which is necessary is NOT necessarily Not useful.
2 Weeks Ago
Report It
 
sorry that might of been confusing
this statement :

CiRrO you never proved the claim that you attempted to negate.

Should have read,


CiRrO you never negated the claim you attempted too.
2 Weeks Ago
Report It
 
I have to vote PRO despite you clever tactics CiRrO, and don't get me wrong they were clever.

"the past is necessary not just useful."

"I negate: knowledge about the past is usefull to complete our knowledge of the world we live in"

CiRrO you never proved the claim that you attempted to negate.

Showing that knowledge of the past is necessary does not prove that it isn't useful.

You never intended to negate that the knowledge was JUST useful. Your goal was to negate the fact that it was useful at all.
2 Weeks Ago
Report It
 
You miss the entire other portion of the resolution. It states that past knowledge is useful for the world we live in. I argued that past knowledge is more then useful, it is a necessity. From this, I have negated the resolution.
2 Weeks Ago
Report It
 
CiRrO should not have even posted a contention.
2 Weeks Ago
Report It
 
This debate is bogus and moot since the contester only agreed... and thus didnt contest... the intention of this debate was not met. The contester only diverted the debate to an alternative issue: how significant is knowledge of the past? The issue "is knowledge of the past significant" was completely ignored by the contester... (Does this constitute abuse on this forum? Because it certainly is poor rhetoric)
2 Weeks Ago
Report It
 
1 2 » Next