This house believes that "Knowledge is impossible"

Firstly, before any further digressions arise, allow me to (once again) clarify a few things. This debate is on knowledge in the philosophical sense. As such for matters of simplification, I respectfully request my opponent to use the most widely used philosophical definition of knowledge, that of justified true belief, where the agent believes a statement, has sufficient evidence for his belief, and that the statement is true. I would request my opponent to clarify his argumentation, as I do not understand how statements such as "happiness is good and sadness is bad" will make knowledge impossible. The moral value of happiness and sadness does not factor into knowledge. My opponent"s very unclear argument can be summed up to be that whether a knowledge is logically proven, or, not so, if the agent (sapient being) behaves according to his knowledge, then the knowledge matters. However, this does not seem to support the claim of "Knowledge is impossible" In fact, by my opponent"s analysis of knowledge, it is quite possible for me to act in accordance to what I know, and make that knowledge matter, making Knowledge possible. My opponent seems to be contradicting his position here and not answering to the motion. I would request my opponent to clarify his argumentation, as I do not understand how statements such as "happiness is good and sadness is bad" will make knowledge impossible. The moral value of happiness and sadness does not factor into knowledge. My next argument will focus on how we all have some form of internal knowledge that is metaphysically necessary. What is firstly undeniable is the fact that we experience some form of reality, whether this reality is true or deceptive. The fact that I can see two hands typing on this keyboard shows that I have sense-experience. I also understand that my hands are in motion, that is they change locations over time. In order to fully understand that my hands are moving however, I must have a recognition of how space works. I must know that my hands as I sense it are further apart from me than my forearm. This concept of space is internalized. Even if all that I experience is deceptive, the fact that I still experience and understand space, however deceptive the space might be, shows a knowledge of the concept of space. The same applies for time. We only ever experience time indirectly, relative to the motion of say a clock. However, in order to understand that as a car passess my window, time is passing, I must have some innate sense of time, I must know internally a concept of time. The fact that I understand that when the clock hands move, time is passing, shows that I have an internal knowledge of the concept of time. Even if I am a brain in a vat on Alpha Centauri, the brain will still have to have a knowledge of the concept of time. Therefore, the knowledge of the concepts of time and space are internal and universal to us, and therefore as this knowledge exist, it must be possible to have knowledge. References (as of now): Putnam, H. (n.d.). Brains in a vat. Reason, Truth and History, 1-21. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625398.003 Chapter Five. Humean Skepticism. (n.d.). Kant and Skepticism. doi:10.1515/9781400824403.21 Stroll, A. (n.d.). Scepticism And The Problem Of The Criterion. Sceptics, Millenarians and Jews, 1-14. doi:10.1163/9789004246669_002 Kant, I., & Meiklejohn, J. M. (1884). Critique of pure reason. London: G. Bell.