Argumentation skills are generally more important than geography to most educated people

I'm enjoying this debate immensely. 1. Did you know that; The largest city in the United States is Wisconsin, with a population of 174, 392. There are nine active volcanoes in the United States? And two of them are in New Hampshire? The deepest of the Great Lakes is Lake Erie, at 1,450 in depth. The tallest building in North America is the McDonald's tower, extending 10,987 Big Mac's above street level. 2. Notice that not only were you not convinced by my first argument, but if you took it seriously you are forced to the conclusion that I am a moron. 1R. Absolutely. 2R. I've just realized that I've given you a great deal of ground that you don't deserve. But before I pull the rug out from under you, I'll extend an argument that I already have. This topic is not about people and practicality, but about educated people and what is important to them. The two things are highly distinct. As I said before, a basic knowledge of geography would be considered far more important to an educated person than the ability to hold some position. To my experience, the more educated you are, the less likely you are to hold firm opinions. It also needs to be said that you seem to be confusing educated people with intelligent people. They are not at all the same thing. And again, because of the high level of specialization in society, practical or useful men are generally the opposite of educated. It is not at all practical to quote Shakespeare or get a business degree (who uses that in daily life away from work), but it is very practical to do your own plumbing or change your own oil. But, if you want to go into practicality, I suppose I'd be more than happy to oblige. Up until now, I've been letting you get away with a specialist definition of geography while using a general definition of argumentation. You can kiss that goodbye. Taking the specialist route, I would not question the intelligence of a man who could not form a syllogism or structure a disadvantage. I might if a man couldn't name his own state capital or the capital of his country. Likewise, I might question a man's intelligence if he couldn't make up a good argument to save his life. I would certainly, however, question his intelligence if he couldn't make up a good set of directions to his own house. To take your own examples: a man can be a pencil pusher without arguing with his boss, but he cannot be even a pencil pusher if he can't find his office. Argumentation may be necessary to get a girl to go out with you, but geography is certainly necessary to find the location of the restaurant you're taking her to. I will, however, concede that argumentation is more fun. This is because it is far more frivolous. You do not enjoy geography because it enjoys an oppressing omnipresence in your own life. You are bored by it because you are beholden to it, like breathing. Argument may be a spice of life, but geography is a staple. Aristotle was a logician, and Topeka is my state's capital, and while I could get on without knowing either one of those, I could not get on without knowing the street in front of my own house. I could, however, get on without knowing a logical fallacy in front of my own eyes. But again, we need not be practical. As practical geography is more basic than practical argumentation, so educated geography is more basic than educated argumentation. Iraq is less obscure than a topicality attack, and the Middle East is a broader subject than Aristotelian logic.