One's poverty is the fault of the individual

My opponent is mistaken. There was absolutely no confusion on my part, and I was not misleading or dishonest. I point my opponent to the very first thing that I said: "Full resolution: Individuals or families who are of the lower class are in the lower class mostly because of poor choices or poor personal characteristics. Other factors are minimally contributory to their poverty and can be easily overcome or bypassed. " My opponent obviously did not read this note. The resolution I wanted to argue would not fit in the title. Furthermore, I followed with the following note: "Both participants should refrain from using semantic arguments, as it would waste a good topic of discussion. Questions about phrasing or confusion about a point should be clarified in the comment section. " I specifically stated that if there was any confusion, my opponent should ask me in the comment section instead of wasting a critical round. He has obviously ignored this too, even after I separated it with a row of asterisks to emphasize that note. In order to avoid any confusion, I will state this: I want to argue about how poverty can be easily overcome. If we are talking about an individual in poverty, I seek to show that the individual can overcome poverty. If we are talking about a family in poverty, then I seek to show that a family can overcome poverty. What did I mean when I said that there were "too many variables"? I meant that in following with my opponent's hypothetical situations, I want to focus on the average person who is poor and is trying to escape poverty. He should not present me with an 80 year old impoverished, paraplegic man and then exclaim that since it is almost impossible for him to come out of poverty, then inequity exists in the system. Too many variables and too many unknowns. In his example, my opponent posits a man with three children and asks me to show how the man as an individual can overcome poverty. I find this to be irrelevant and complicated because the man has three children. He is not an individual, he is part of a family in need. I would obviously address how the family as a unit can overcome poverty. If we are speaking of just the man, then his choice to abandon schooling or to not work harder than he did is responsible for the fact that he now has three children and is unable to go to law school. This still remains his fault. If we are talking about the children, who are not at fault for anything yet, they can very easily rise into the upper classes with a moderate amount of effort. Since my opponent has not responded to a single one of my points, I have no choice but to guess as to what arguments he is going to use. I would like to remind the audience that it is bad form for the contender to submit new arguments in the last round, especially since my opponent has mentioned absolutely nothing in his round 2 for me to counter. An argument my opponent used was that Industrialization allowed the poor to work menial labor jobs. With the change to white collar jobs, this leaves the uneducated poor out of the workforce. This was my opponent's argument in the following forum discussion. Please see the 4th post down: . http://www.debate.org... My opponent essentially separates white collar from blue collar, but he misinterprets the "service industry" . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... Here is the description of the service industry: "Services may involve the transport, distribution business and sale of goods from producer to a consumer as may happen in good timing and or may involve the provision of a service, such as in entertainment Goods may be transformed in the process of providing a service, as happens in the restaurant industry or in equipment repair. However, the focus is on people interacting with people and serving the customer rather than transforming physical goods. " Also, please examine the following chart, which shows that the US is almost 100% designated as a service economy: . http://upload.wikimedia.org... My opponent may argue that the fall of industry or agriculture may lead to decrease in menial labor jobs, but this is a service economy, making that point irrelevant, since the vast majority of jobs, be it high or low pay, are service oriented. This include running a deli, a vendor cart, chinese food delivery, mail delivery, newspaper seller, taxi driver, or thousands of other jobs that uneducated immgirant workers aim for in trying to make it big. The fact of the matter is that there are many jobs available, it's just that some people are simply too lazy to try. The poor stay poor because they don't understand that they have to work hard get going. It's harder to get a boulder moving than it is to keep it moving. They just see the upper classes roll in money with ease and assume that there is injustice. There is no barrier except hard work. The fact that hard work is the only determinant is illustrated by the fact that children of immigrant families tend to end up in higher economic classes than their parents. My opponent cannot be correct because his position flies in the face of truth. He is clearly mistaken in his assertion that the poor are poor because they are forced to be poor and will stay poor no matter what. I apologize to the audience and I hope that my opponent will choose to challenge me again because I want to hear his input on this issue. Regretfully, this cannot be the case because he has chosen to ignore all the preliminary rules I set forth at the beginning of the debate, then waste an entire round expressing his confusion. The resolution has been affirmed.