Is theortical knowledge better than practical knowledge

CON said: "practical knowledge have more learning habit and due with the person always have curiosity of learning more things in life than theoretical knowledge ." (sic)Unfortunately, I cannot for the life of me understand what exactly my opponent has typed here, but I do think I understand the gist of his argument. I think it should be as follows: "Practical knowledge invokes a learning habit, complementing natural curiosity and leading to discovery, and is therfore better than theoretical knowledge." I would dare say that this is quite the opposite, as practical knowledge is a complete form of knowledge. As opposed to theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge is information that you have tried with your own hands, or have seen others try, and know to be true a majority of the time. Theoretical knowledge is knowing that something may be possible if one does something. To illustrate this, I will use an example. Practical knowledge is used when making a sandwich. Many, if not all of the audience has made sandwiches before, and therefore they know that if one gets a slice of bread, puts some edible products on it, and covers it with another slice of bread, one will have made a sandwich. Theoretical knowledge is used when we are putting together a new piece of furniture, or a model car. Not many among the audience have put together every single piece of furniture, or every single model car, and so we will naturally use the instructions. And the instructions should theoretically lead us to the finished product, and so being theoretical knowledge.The only difference is that one we undertand and know how to accomplish ourselves, while the second we do not fully understand and have simply calculated or figured to be true.Therefore our debate becomes clear: understanding or not understanding? My opponent has used an odd argument, as this in fact argues more for theoretical knowledge than any other. Practical knowledge's prime use are for conformity and staying in your comfort zone, while theoretical knowledge is used when you are not completely sure and exploring into new areas nd possibilities. It is therefore theoretical, not practical knowledge, that drives curiosity and leads to discovery. There are many examples of theoretics proving things way before practical proof caught up. In recent news, Planet Z, the theoretical ninth planet in the solar system, has been theoreticized based on odd, unnatural asteroid parabolas that line up. This suggests that they were thrown off course by a yet undiscovered celestial body, which of course led to all the Planet Z theories that now occupy astrologists. Notice that the actual planet has not yet been seen, yet we are theoreticizing it's existance from surrounding information.Another example is the more historical discovery of scandium, gallium, germanium, and technetium, elements of chemistry. These were first theoreticized by Mendeleev, the creator of the periodic table, who noticed empty spots in the pattern of elements and calculated the properties of each of these elements. When they were finally discovered, Mendeleev corrected some of the data presented by the actual discoverers based on his theoretical predictions without actually handling or even seeing the material itself, and it was eventually admitted that he was right. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)Theoretical knowledge now is a strong proponent of quantum mechanics, the string theory, and the M-theory, as well as the Einsteinian concept of relativity. It produces models of everything from the Big Bang to the effects of Global Warming, and is the future of science.