[baddox]

But how important is it to form an argument on the spot based only on the facts you have memorized? Sure, it's valuable for things like competitive debate, extemporaneous speaking, pub trivia, and perhaps some unfortunate job interviews, but if I had to pick, I'd rather everyone be better at doing a bit of research and taking their time forming an argument.

[zecho]

I'm not really talking about on the spot knowledge, though. After awhile, you should just know things. If every time you sat down to write a program, you had to look up the definition of a variable, you'd be in for quite a difficult time.

Some knowledge, like history or literature or even science outside of your field, doesn't really have an apparent application. I'm not really arguing against applied knowledge, but I'm saying that personal edification is a very good thing. Connections pop up in the strangest ways. In fact, I'd argue that without a degree of memorization, research skills will be lacking in most people, as they wouldn't have a clue where to begin.

[seren]

Let's take an example from everyday life. Someone see an ad online, for a big discount on an hotel stay in south east Turkey. If you have no idea on the spot that you'll likely be close to the syrian border in might look like a good idea on first examination.

That might be a prejudice on my part, but I think that someone, who does not know some geographical facts is the less likely to look thoroughly at a map before planning a journey.