It struck me today just surfing some forums on the web today, why is this the accepted method of debating today? Some teachers could correct me on this, but from my own knowledge, there are four basic levels of knowledge: Rote, Understanding, Application, and Correlation, and these are the basic definitions: -Rote: You see it, you memorize it, you know it. Example, 2+2=4 -Understanding: You see it, now you know what it means. Example, you have two items; you have another two items. Combine them into one result; you have four items. -Application: You're measuring traffic flow. At a given moment, two cars are travelling northbound on a street and two cars are travelling southbound on the street. Thus, you have four cars because 2+2=4. -Correlation: In theory, this is the level that many people do not get to in their quest for knowledge, the ability to tie the application level of knowledge into the big picture of things. Tough to come up with a worthy example, but try this. You see four footprints in the dirt. You see two which look similar and another two which look similar. You can imply that two came from one animal and two came from another animal. Thus, there are two items and two more items being added up to create four total items. If asked what the animals were doing, you can look at the orientation of them, and if they're in line, you can determine that they may have been walking in the same direction, or if they're out of line, they may have been fighting. Anyways, the basic goal of knowledge is to get to the top level, correlation. It would seem then, that a great debater would want to correlate knowledge into an argument to create a nearly indisputable claim. However, it seems like not just forum posters, but politicians and other people especially are content debating on the rote level of things. For instance, I'll see someone state a claim and then quote someone or themselves, looking something like "blah blah blah, big unusual word, blah blah blah, word that no one uses anymore, blah blah blah." I may come in then and say something like, "Well you said this, but in fact over in this neck of the woods, things exist like this, not that, so how do you account for this scenario within your argument?" Then, I'll get the same regurgitated phrase back from the person, "no, your wrong, because blah blah blah, big unusual word, blah blah blah, word that no one uses anymore, blah blah blah. Get that?" What becomes further ironic is that people who are looking to obtain new knowledge go with the rote level of the debate and side with the other guy; I guess because the rote argument is easiest to grasp and perhaps therefore "pop knowledge". I guess this is a whole rant more than anything, but why is it that people throw one fact around in the argument and throw it enough times until they've knocked out every tooth in every head, and why do people debate back with the same one-fact strategy? Anything I haven't seen? Anyways, by no means am I looking to condemn anyone on this local community, but elsewhere (not just on other forums) do you guys have similar observations and deduce similar/other conclusions? Thanks!