Knowledge has inherent value

"My opponent concedes in this same paragraph states that all of this "irrelevant information" can be made relevant. It is then said that "there is a massive body of irrelevant information of which we cannot use…". This is a direct contradiction which helps to illustrate why time is not an issue in value. How is it a contradiction at all? Can the information become relevant? Yes. Will most of it become relevant? No. There is no contradiction and is clearly a ploy by my oponent to affirm his flimsy point that because information has the potential to be made relevant, then it has value. This is incorrect as most of the information will never be made relevant as humans have a finite lifespan and knowledge is increasingly becoming infinite. :Firstly, he states that relevant information is useful. He then states all irrelevant information can be made relevant. It can be made relevant, of course. The facts about a man in russias life can be made relevant if I decide to spontaneously hop a plane and go meet the said individual. Can I do this with everyone before I die? No. Could the fact about mars be made relevant? Yes, someone could ask me about Mars. Does that mean that someone will definetly ask me about mars? No. Therefore what he is stating by proxy is that all irrelevant information can be useful. How can this "massive body" be of no use and useful at the same time? It cannot. Uh yes it can? Just because something can be useful doesn't mean it is useful. The massive body of knowledge is useless. All of it can be made useful. Only a small portion will ever be made useful in a lifetime. The quality of being valuable the quality of offering opportunity is within the knowledge at all times, The quality of offering future benefit is possible. The probability of all knowledge offering future benefit is low due to the large amount of data and the lifespan of humans. Because of this low probability knowledge is only useful/valuable/offering utility when it is used. Stating that value is inserted at the line where it is "made useful" is an arbitrary line that is difficult to outline and offers new problems to my opponent's argument. At what point is it made useful? Is it when one realizes that they can use it? Because surely it was useful beforehand and simply not used. Is it made useful at the point in which it is used? Are hammers only useful when someone is using a hammer? It is only useful when it is being used as was previously stated. Hammers are only useful when being used. If I have a hammer, but am in a coma. The hammer is useless to me as I do not have a use for it. No, it is an inherent quality. Similarly, value is an inherent quality in knowledge, not solely because it is useful, but because it at all times offers the potential to become important. " This has been clearly proven wrong in the above analogy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opponent has made lengthy summarizations of irrelevant that do not further his conclusion. His arguments are riddled with red herrings which seek to divert the attention of this debate elsewhere. The crux of my opponents knowledge is useful even if it i not ever used merely because it has the potential to be used. This has been refuted multiple times especially in his equation of a hammer being inherently useful with knowledge being inherently useful. Something is useful only when it is used. Thus the definition of useful. Furthermore something is valuable only when it is valued. Large quantities of data are not valued by the populous as I have given numerous examples of. My opponent has not proven his resolution and unfortunately made me waste a ton of time reading nonsensical summaries and misinterpreted quotations from poets and shakespeare.