According to the American Heritage dictionary, the contender in this debate is NOT an idiot.

Thanks for debating yourself, I whole heartedly accept your definition. "Next, I would like to state that the information presented in A, B, and C cannot be confirmed unless my opponent provides evidence for each, thus they are dismissible. That said, I will still address two of them, but will insist that my opponent provide conclusive evidence for the other." >> I dismiss this claim. I, being myself, am the foremost authority on me until proven otherwise. Therefore we can accept all information that I presented in A, B, and C. "To quote Albert Einstein, ""Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." My opponents main reason for believing that he is an idiot is because he believes he has made mistakes throughout his life, but as Albert Einstein suggest, mistakes are very beneficial in helping one improve." >> I also agree. This does not change the fact that I am still and idiot, I am simply moving away from being an idiot. "A: My opponent states that his action resulted in dismantling his friendship IN REAL LIFE. In any MMORPG, it is encouraged that one become friends with other members as other members can aid him in missions and give him a good understanding of the gameplay mechanics. Besides, I would submit that there is more potential in an online friendship than there is in an offline friendship as one isn't influenced by external factors (such as appearance) when socializing. There's also the fact that games can be beneficial as the following article suggest: http://discovermagazine.com...... . There's also the fact that video games are currently very hot on the market and a profession in such a field can potentially make one very successful in financial terms. Taking the 3 parts of the definition into account, they don't apply, as my opponent's reason for believing his action to be foolish was that his gaming could not have been beneficial (which is the point I just covered)." >>A: I very much agree with the first half of the first paragraph. However I disagree with idea of more potential in an online relationship, at least in my case. While the potential may exist it did not do so in my case, which in the end left me high and dry. I agree games can be beneficial, just not to me making real life friends that will last me a lifetime. To contradict the 2nd paragraph I was obviously foolish, this can be seen through meeting over half of your definitions presented for foolish. (Keep in mind I only have to meet one to be foolish. 1. "Lacking or exhibiting a lack of good sense or judgment; silly: foolish remarks. " Obviously lacked good judgment on the making friends level. 2. "Arousing laughter; absurd or ridiculous: a foolish grin." My parents laughed at my stupidity. 3. "Embarrassed; abashed: I feel foolish telling you this. " I was embarrassed they were laughing. 4. "Insignificant; trivial: spent all their money on foolish little knickknacks. " No significance on my life now. "B. Provide valid evidence that this is the case." >>B: Foremost authority on myself. You drop the point and concede it to me. "C. Home schooling would have alienated my opponent from REAL LIFE friends (which my opponent speaks of valuing in A) and higher education would have been a burden on my opponent's parents/guardian in financial terms. With that said, my opponent would have to advocate that no matter what decision he ended up making, it would be foolish." >>C: Good point, luckily I said home schooling or more advanced study. In light of this new info I will choose more advanced study. You concede my years of schooling were spent in a foolish manner. Under all definitions through point A and also "Resulting from stupidity or misinformation; unwise: a foolish decision." I thought it would help more than it did. "D. My opponent states that he has spent his entire life in a very "lacking forethought", but with the valid definitions acknowledged, we must replace "lacking forethought" with "lacking good sense or judgment." Previously, he makes it known that bad results = bad judgment, but I've pointed out the benefits in his choices, thus, by his own logic, his decisions did not "lack good sense or judgment." >>D: First off you choose arbitrarily one of your six definitions to replace with mine. Also I disagree, my life did lack a good sense of judgment (look to above 3 points) However for the sake of argument, I will cite two more of your definitions to counter your one. 1. "Arousing laughter; absurd or ridiculous: a foolish grin. " My life has arisen much laughter. 2. "Embarrassed; abashed: I feel foolish telling you this. " And yes, I have often been embarrassed. "E. Again, we can replace "forethought" with "good sense or judgment" An example of "good sense or judgment" would be in what my opponent is doing right now in that he has taken the time to articulate his arguments and using forms of reasoning to combat my case. Therefore, he is not foolish, but rather an intelligent individual." >>E: Ah but once again I deny you. By writing this I am lacking a good sense of judgment, my judgment on the contrary has all been rather just simply a "sense of judgment" neither good nor bad. Once again I offer you two, actually three, of your own definitions to combat your one. 1. "Arousing laughter; absurd or ridiculous: a foolish grin. " If this debate has not resulted in some laughter on someones part I will be very much surprised. 2. "Embarrassed; abashed: I feel foolish telling you this." I am publicly humiliating myself. 3. "Insignificant; trivial: spent all their money on foolish little knickknacks. " Who will honestly care about this debate 20 days from now? It is insignificant. "Further evidence that my opponent is intelligent: He has used "good sense/judgment" to win on this website. For example, notice this debate: http://www.debate.org...; >>http://www.debate.org... Look at my opponents comment here. This shows the reason. "The main reason you must vote against my opponent is simply because voting for him would suggest that you simply came into this knowing who you would vote for in advance or that he managed to show good judgment in knowing how to persuade you into believing that he was an idiot. If it is due to the latter, this in itself would show that he truly does not live up to the definition of "Idiot." Thus, if he shows good judgment in the next round by using logically reasoning out my responses and rebutting them, he is providing some evidence that he is not an idiot. Needless to say, not being able to convince you that he is an idiot doesn't suggest that he is an idiot. In fact, it just suggest that he is unable to convince you of what clearly isn't the truth." >>On the contrary I have to convince you as the voter that this debate makes you laugh (mental laughter counts), humiliates me, or is insignificant. I have already done all three. "Finally, I would like to remind you that well known people such as Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkings have made mistakes (thus have shown poor judgment) in their lives. Making mistakes is something we all do. However, just because we all make mistakes, it does not automatically define us as idiots (or people who make poor judgment) especially if we have made numerous intelligent decisions in our lives. Thus, even if my opponent presents conclusive evidence for B (as he is supposed to since the burden of proof belongs to him), we could dismiss it as a mistake rather than present it as proof that he is an idiot." >>Sure, but you haven't proven that they were always not idiots. Therefor I may become a genius at some point through my mistakes but for now I am an idiot under the American Heritage dictionary at least.... Thanks, vote for me.