Negligence is the source of stupidity

Stupidity is the source of negligence The argument in your first paragraph presumes that God exists. Since you've provided another argument that does not have this presumption, I'm going to address that. "For example, and this is just theoretical, NASA scientist see a meteor that will soon pass Earth. They also report that at the very same time, there will be a astronomical aligning of some sort. What they do not know is that the meteor will explode at that moment and destroy Earth. What is seen here is more of a lack of knowledge, not from stupidity, as the knowledge is now gained and can be applied, even though it destroyed the earth." A lack of understanding is slightly different from a lack of knowledge -- the two are not synonymous yet are not mutually exclusive either. Someone can have the right facts (knowledge) about something, but he or she may not be understanding why the facts are so (understanding). For example, a young student (say 6 years old) is taught that the Earth revolves around the Sun, yet will not understand the gravitational forces making this a fact. The young student has the knowledge, but not the understanding. My argument addresses a lack of understanding, not a lack of knowledge. "Considering your position, I believe that it does not fit on a large enough scale. A person who is stupid may be able to understand the universe and all, but is not smart enough to apply the concept or gain knowledge, although they are not negligent to it at all." In this instance, I would argue that there isn't understanding of the universe as the person cannot apply the concepts; a person may have knowledge of the universe, but not be able to apply the concepts because they do not have understanding. "A stupid person can be negligent, but a negligent person is always stupid." This is confusing cause and effect, which I think is the fundamental flaw of your argument. To demonstrate my point, a fire-fighter (the professional kind) puts out fires. However, putting out fires does not make a person a fire-fighter. Similarly, doing negligent things does not make a person stupid, rather, it is because someone is stupid that he or she does negligent things. "Consider a student at a school. If they are negligent, they will see no value in being at school, nor value in the knowledge that they are supposed to be learning, rather, they choose to busy their minds doing meaningless, and often stupid, things. However, there may be a stupid, perhaps slow or mentally challenged is a more proper term, student who strives to learn but simply does not understand what is going on. I've actually meet a couple of people like that. Therefore, the latter student is not at all being negligent towards what is being taught, while the former is negligent towards all and does not, or will not, comprehend anything that comes towards them." Again, confusing cause and effect is the major issue here. This is the discussion part of this debate, as these points are not entirely relevant to the resolution. I will be digressing away from the resolution is some of my comments, but I believe that I have already addressed my opponent's arguments prior to this section. "I would also like to quote something that you said: "Stupidity would be avoiding reading a book when you know that it has information that you could make use of." To me, you are almost confirming my point. The person is neglect the information, the book as well, hindering them from gaining anything from the books. While a stupid person may try to read the book for the sake of attempting to understand, a negligent person will, as you said, completely avoid it." A stupid person can be negligent at the same time. I could easily replace the word "stupidity" with 'negligence'. We agree on the result that 'stupidity and negligence are often synonymous', it's that we don't agree on what causes what. "I was implying that they book was made to teach something to the reader. If someone reads a book on integral calculus, while still trying to simple addition, while they may be able to read the whole book and claim that they read it, they did not gain anything of the sort information through that." Yes, with non-fiction work, there are limitations relative to the subject. However, fiction is not bound by the constraints of authorial intent; once a novel is released, it is subject to the interpretation of all who read it, and because of this, a plethora of meanings are created. "Also, theme is a well known aspects of good books, including fiction and all genres...Even reading a sign teaches someone something specific, such as a speed limit sign teaches someone the speed limit in a certain area." The idea that morals can be taught through narrative does not sit well with me as fiction is not bound by such linear constraints. Sure, the author may have intended a certain moral to be the focus of the novel, but I think it is up the reader to respond to the novel however he or she chooses. Perhaps a philosophical discourse (say Immanuel Kant's or David Hume's works) is far more bound by what you speak of. Basically, I don't think objectivity (or even inter-subjectivity) applies to all written work. In other words, 'this novel talks about this and this' or 'you should get this from reading this' are phrases that makes me cringe. "Yes, humans are instinctive, but instinct is not always emotional." I said that, "I think we are ultimately stupid because we are driven by emotional/instinctive factors" (emotional/instinctive should really have an 'and or' in between). In light of this, I never made a point contrary to what you said. "...there would be a specific point at which one could not give an answer, rather than just a response that uses no actual thought." This is the point where I say that answer is based on instinct and or emotion. While decisions we make may have rational reasoning blended within, the foundation is either instinctive and or emotional. "I would say that you are a logical thinker, as am I." While we are using logic and rationale, it is not our basis. For example, I am using logic (at least trying) in this debate to understand the subject(s) in question. I am doing this to draw a conclusion on the subject. I am doing this so I can base my decisions off this conclusion. I am doing this so I can act rationally. I am wanting to act rationally so I can live my life in accordance to the truth. I want to do this because I believe this is the right thing to do (and bam, the emotional and or instinctive reason). There is no rational response I can give. I want to live my life in accordance to what I believe is the truth -- any justification of this will be circular in reasoning (because it is not based on reason). Apply the same process to something you do and see what the ultimate answer is. In other words, ultimately, people use logic and rationale for reasons that are not logically or rational.