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

It's clear my opponent has no interest in honest debate, rather he is more interested in debating semantics that he agreed not to bring up again in opening 1. I'm honestly not in the mood for a purely semantic debate when my proposition was arguably not even flawed. I see this eventually going down to debating definitions of the word argumentation, the word geography, even the word 'to', etc. Honestly, it's pointless. While I find it fun to go after somebody for drastic semantic flaws, It's no fun when the entire (long) debate is based entirely on semantics. I refuse to get into a semantic debate. Vote for me however you want. I contend that for most people, skills in rhetoric (argumentation) as we classically see them are more important than skills in geography as we classically see them. While I might have not had the time to make my proposition specific to avoid any possible semantic misunderstanding, it's clear that that is what I was hoping to debate here rather than semantics. Skills in Geography are often seen as important to people, and taught frequently in high school. Specifically, knowing state capitals or where exactly other countries are. This has no practical purpose. Argumentation skills, however, will be used everywhere. Whether you are trying to get your boss to give you a raise, to getting a different shift, to trying to woo the girl you fancy. Argumentation must be used in business reports, in intelligent discussion- almost everywhere in real life. Knowing where the state capitals are, knowing where exactly Iraq is in relation to Iran have no practical purpose in every day life. A discussion in where I confuse the capital of Illinois for Springfield when the capital is actually Chicago will probably make you think a little less of me, however, your drinking alcohol, so you are evil- please don't vote for my opponent, it would be wrong, you don't want to get people killed from drunk driving, do you? 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? 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? This is the only debate in my recent memory in which I even mentioned geography skills, whereas I have used my skills in argumentation for each and every one of these debates. 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)? Chances are, you will say never. However, when was the last time you had to convince your boss to give you a raise, to convince your professor the real reason why you were late was that you had a flat tire rather than a hangover, when was the last time you had to convince people like you and me on a debating website? Chances are, you can think of a time you had to use your argumentation skills at least every week, whereas your geography skills only come in handy when traveling or when taking tests in high school.