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

"1. I'm honestly not in the mood for a purely semantic debate when my proposition was arguably not even flawed. " You clearly weren't paying attention. I did use semantics by saying that if we use one sense of a word, we ought to use the same sense for the other word. But after that, I blew your position to bits in either sense. That is not a purely semantic argument, and I'll thank you not to misrepresent it. YOU'RE the one arguing that my semantics are wrong now, anyway. But lets see what you think the topic says using the semantics of the words "as we classically see them. " "Argumentation skills (rational thought) are generally more important than geography (state capitals) to most educated(practical) people. " No, there is clearly nothing wrong with that topic of all. You basically wanted to debate that a necessary thing is more practical than trivia. You'll excuse me if I disagree that that is a good debate. You have assumed your own position. It is my contention that what is flawed in this debate is not semantics, but your own conception of geography. I have taken debate as a class just as I've taken geography as a class, and they are both completely impractical. I am challenging your interpretation of the topic because it degrades geography to a class, which is the wrong approach to life. Why should you degrade a subject when you can appreciate it just as easily? My way makes geography something vital and important, and yours makes it drudgery. Which approach to things do you think is better in life? You've already chosen in regards to argumentation, why not chose the same for geography? Regardless of the way you choose, though, at least be consistent. If you want to be a pessimist about things, that's your affair, but be a consistent pessimist. By all means, accuse me of not following an interpretation of this topic that leaves me no ground. But don't degrade this by debate by accusing me of dishonesty. You wanted to debate something you'd win almost by definition (semantics), and I say that a better debate is being consistent in the way you value things in life. Or at least, if it isn't a better debate, it is certainly a better way to debate, and that is how I've debated. If you don't like it, prove your way is better. Now, for specifics. "It's no fun when the entire (long) debate is based entirely on semantics. " While I do not question the sincerity of this statement, the idea behind it is certainly false. I had one semantic based premise (that our sense of one word in the topic should be the same as the other word in the topic), and I built the bulk of my argument off of that in a manner that had nothing at all to do with semantics. The bulk of my side of the debate, as anyone can see, has not been semantics. Debate it with joy in your heart, then. "it's clear that that is what I was hoping to debate here rather than semantics. " Not true. You were hoping to debate in one semantic sense, while I debated in another (better) one. "I appeal to the voters, which part of my previous paragraph did you find most irking, the fact that I made a very serious geographical error, or the fact that I used an Ad Hominem fallacy? " The geographical error was not serious at all. Saying that Springfield is the capital of China is a serious geographical error. And plus, you made multiple logical fallacies all of which were as blatant as possible. I at least tried to make my errors in geography and rhetoric comparable. "Would your vote be more swayed by me using primarily illogical arguments, or would your vote be more swayed by me not immediately demonstrating my skill in geography to you? " If you translate this sentence to the semantically unbiased version, it reads "Would your vote be more swayed by actively using incorrect arguments, or would your vote be more swayed by not immediately proving my geographical expertise to you. " The fallacies are supposed to be blatant, and the geography is supposed to be untested. That's not really a fair question. "I have used my skills in argumentation for each and every one of these debates. " Well, duh. "When was the last time you really had to practically use geography in real life, outside of something that musn't be learned though schooling or real research (like the example my opponent used about finding their house)? " You mean outside of something that is practical? Why should it be something that you have to learn in school (since your phrasing is so unwieldy)? Do you generally make a habit of phrasing things so that you win by definition even if there is no cause for you to phrase them that way? (other than the cause of you winning by definition) All that crud aside, you've completely ignored my first argument (which is valid regardless of semantics). Education is not practicality, and in school Thomas Aquinas was considerably more educated than his peers while being so bad at rhetoric that they offered to tutor him. Frankly, you should lose just for ignoring this argument the entire time. It isn't even a particularly difficult one to beat. But seriously, don't question my integrity. It makes you look like a jerk when you size up the character of someone using two posts on an internet debate.