That history is worth studying

Tophatdoc

I would like to thank my opponent for hosting this debate. I as Pro will be arguing "that history is worth studying." Therefore I have the burden of proof alone.  I will offer my opinions during the first round to open the debate due to the character limit. I will offer facts and other theories outside of my own conjecture in the rest of the rounds to back the four points.

1. The importance of information: History is primarily important because it tells human beings what has happened previously. I am not referring to strictly political history or social history but I am referring to history in the general sense of the term. This inevitably include our personal history as well.

History: "a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/history

In order to assess a situation properly it is best to accumulate as much information as possible in order to understand as much as possible. History itself is nothing short of lifeless information which may be true or false or written by a devout reclusive annalist or conjured up by a populist charlatan flim-flam artist. A knowledge of history is needed to assert and refute points that may be true or outright fictitious in origin. For example, an effeminate whiner in a first world country may say "the world has always been a peaceful place." Yet a hard faced gobsh in a third world country may need only point to the 20th century to show how destructive mankind is. Without the knowledge of history neither of the two have an authoritative answer based on facts.

2. Learning:  History allows us to learn about the past, the good , the bad, and the ugly.   That is why now we can lean about mistakes and correct them(IE. global warming). We can learn from history to build character or leadership skills by the imitation or celebration of irregular individuals such as  Julius Caesar, Dr. Sun Yat Sen, Ho Chi Minh, and etc. We can learn about the harsh experiences of the Holocaust, African Slave Trade, or the Spanish Inquisition. History can be very excruciating at times. If this is not learned we may forget the original fancy for the United Nations or the European Union. But history is not all violent as I alluded to as in the last few sentences.  The study of history is needed to understand and celebrate traditions and customs. For example, in the United States we celebrate the American Constitution with negative rights that can be pocketed and carried with ease. A celebration of America's only intellectual tradition, liberalism.Many things can be learned from history that can be put into practice for whatever purpose.

3. Expansion of one's actions:  The more one knows, the more one can act. Thus the more information one can collect, the better chance of an efficient response. To not study history limits that capacity to respond efficiently, that limits the quality of results. The more information, the better. History can only bring us useless information or beneficial information but it can not physically harm us.

4. The human experience and science: My observation of the human experience is that the knowledge human beings have acquired over their short existence is not accumulative. Instead, from my observations I have noticed the knowledge that human beings possess is based on their experiences rather than an innate intangible library hidden in the cerebrum.  This leads knowledge that is relevant and limited to one's experience.  We will create problems and solve problems according to the experiences we encounter. We will act according to the limited knowledge we possess. Our actions are then studied by scientists in STEM fields or liberal arts fields. Scientists require a knowledge of history in order to test theories and to arrive at consistencies. Those consistencies may lead to facts that we may all...

Tophatdoc

I will finish the last three lines of my first round argument which were cut off.

The Human Experience and Science(Cont.)

Those consistencies may lead to facts that we may all benefit from. For example, if we are to study whether human beings are violent creatures or not, we must understand human history. This would require a study of a variety of societies, those that are insignificant and boring as the Kingdom of Axum to more important societies such as the Roman Empire. In essence, there can be more books like Stephen Pinker's  The Better Angels of Our Nature where violence is studied. But more scientific studies can be conducted with far less rhetoric and agendas and more decisive conclusive evidence.

RE:More study of useful stuff

A study of history is required in order to understand history. How can you understand that of which you have not studied? This is why all too often many historians find themselves making linguistic errors and misappropriating terms because they fail to understand what the terms mean within their proper context. For example, the word "popular" in the 18th century was a pejorative that was synonymous with the word "vulgar."  Versus in modern day society, the word "popular" may be considered "complimentary" or "praising". I disagree with my opponent' s premise that the state should dictate what fields should be studied(if that is what he is suggesting) or not studied by students. If the state wishes to do their own research, so be it.

 RE:Importance of information

I will simply use a fictional quote to display why my opponent's argument here is incorrect. In the words of an Anime character, Soszuke Aizen, "Admiration is the emotion furthest from understanding[1]." My opponent is suggesting that the study of history is a desire for nostalgia, hence his usage of terms. "worth remembering." However, such characters who look at history in such a lens have no interest in studying history. Their interest is for celebrating history rather than understanding it.

The 300 movie had little understanding of how Spartan society functioned.  The movie was purely a romance of factual events rather than any in-depth look at history for entertainment value only. If the 300 movie was actually interested in explaining historical events, the Spartan society would not be romanticized in any domesticated society that encourages reason rather than will.

My opponent further illustrates the point of how history has been reduced to gimmicks by entertainers. History has also been reduced in value by people with political agendas who want to spin history to their benefit selecting tidbits that suit their taste. American Richard Weaver discusses this in his book, Ideas have Consequences, "the man of culture finds the whole past relevant; the bourgeois and the barbarian find relevant only what has some pressing connection with their appetite[2]."  To study history for nostalgia or political agendas is not appropriate to understand history but to distort it.

[1]http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/175516-admiration-is-the-emotion-furthest-from-understanding-sosuke-aizen

[2]The Ideas have Consequences by Richard Weaver

RE: We might forget

The Internet is abstract and is dependent upon Internet users to put in information. It should not be trusted as 100% trustworthy. My opponent or I, if we wished we can input information into the Internet to be disruptive and humorous or even worse, malevolent. For example, I remember when a student gave a presentation in high school stating that Gaius Julius Caesar had been the emperor of the Mayan empire and defeated the Spanish in the 17th century. This is disinformation and deception. The Internet's information should be questioned more thoroughly than any book written(since anyone who has the capability can use it) that suffers criticism.

RE:Expansion of actions

My opponent just says other fields should be studied. There are other fields being studied(at least here in the USA). I don't see the...