My opponent is a female who is not ignorant

First, the personal attacks: I disagree entirely with my opponent's stance on the television show Sex and the City (not that I have to defend it in this joke of a debate, but I will for my own amusement). He posits that "real" feminists do not watch the show. First, prove it. Second, try defining what makes a "real" feminist; the term itself is under intense scrutiny and objection by even the most intelligent and prominent women in the field of Women's/Gender Studies, and other 'feminist' educators and activists. A traditional concept of feminism defines it as a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women. The show in question depicts primarily four middle-aged women who consider (1) The value of their lives over the value of finding a husband... but for the one that does obsess over finding love, it's okay because love is a value of HERS, and that is a choice that SHE makes for herself - not a choice imposed by society or by her "liberal" friends who may think differently than her in other aspects (2) Not conforming to society's standards regarding relationships (3) The acceptance of women embracing their sexuality and defying age-old societal constraints on the permissibility of openness about sex (4) The advancement of women in the workplace, as they're all very successful (5) Women in the work place who are actually empowered over male subordinates (6) The ability of women to attain such feminist goals while still being able to project femininity not because they have to, but because they are so inclined... etc. Re: The idea that I lack a "basic education in math and science" and that I'm supposedly all right-brained -- Once again, I maintain that my opponent has the burden of proving these claims. He makes these assertions based on strict observance of my DDO profile, obviously, which I argue is HARDLY a reliable source of true information. For one thing, anybody can write anything they want; my profile states that I am 100 years old. I am not. For another, my opponent's analysis is hardly thorough let alone considerable as legit. And finally, Pro has absolutely zero indication of the extent of my knowledge in either of these areas. Further, even if he did, he would have the burden of proving (1) I am ENTIRELY ignorant in these fields (2) That I am indeed considered right-brained... which really indicates nothing; tests on the matter merely indicate which "side" of your brain is more dominant. As far as the Trenton joke goes... hardy har har... not clever, my friend. I know all about Jersey/Trenton -- I attend school at Rutgers University: the State University of NJ. I'd much rather consider myself (and rather be) a New Yorker over someone from Trenton or Arizona (sorry - I'm more of a city gal, and not a huge fan of being in Red States)... what does this have to do with anything? My opponent is lining this debate with more useless nonsense. It's a waste of my time and yours (the readers), and is hardly as entertaining as, say, the jokes of users like Brian_Eggleston and the like. Therefore you should probably vote for me based on sheer annoyance alone, but I digress. Back to the issues: First, I actually didn't read anything in the Comments section of the debate that noted Jane Austen was in fact the author of those quotes. Second, let's suppose for a second that I actually DIDN'T know the answer and that I was ignorant to that tidbit of information. Well, upon reading the answer in the Comments section, I would immediately become UN-ignorant to that claim, still making my opponent's notion false. The resolution states that his opponent would be a female who was ignorant to the author of the quote. Upon accepting the debate and learning of the quote, that would not be the case, making my opponent's logic invalid and thus myself the winner of the debate. Further still (I'm very bored, admittedly) I acknowledge that my opponent has now demanded that the Con must defend Objectivism and the support of a Border Fence in order to combat the notion that Con (myself) is not ignorant. Since the antonyms of ignorance include knowledge and competence, all I must do is be able to exude a basic knowledge and defense of the concepts in question, and rationalize my ideals regarding those issues at a level those in positions of judgment (voters) deem competent. I surely can. However, I will first argue that a rejection of Objectivism does not automatically = non-ignorance, so first, my opponent must demonstrate how support of these fields actually puts ME in a burden to have to defend them. His previous attempts (if they can be considered as such) are unqualified; all he did was post links to other websites without detailing any of his reasoning. That said, I'll send this debate back to my inept and unamusing opponent for now.