Success is unlikely without attending high school.

My oppoent has decided to try and defend his argument. Which is sad, because there is no defense that can be made to excuse his blatant disregard for the rules and his pathetic semantics ploy. "In a debate, you cannot rely on your opponent to interpret and twist your words to fit what you want them to say." As I said, I inferred my purpose when I correlated success with making money and gaining employment. Success does not mean achieving Nirvana. Success does not mean having a wife and kids. In a capitalist society where "success" is defined by money and power and achieved primarily through school, we shouldn't have to negotiate over such definitions. My opponent cannot simply twist around terms in order to have them correlate to an irrelevant meaning. When someone says that they want to be successful, they don't mean being able to meditate well, they mean being rich. I shouldn't even have had to specifically describe what I meant by success, but I did anyway. There is no excuse. "What was I supposed to think exactly? You create a forum topic which just so happens to coincide with this debate?" Are you really justifying yourself here as well? Here are some reasons why I wouldn't do something like that: 1. People would accuse me of cheating. There are other forums on the internet. 2. I made the thread after you posted your round. 3. I have previously said that I hated school in the forums. 4. There was no point in making this debate other than to gain advice. 5. I have already asked the question of what to do after leaving school: [http://mises.org...]I gained plenty of advice but no hard statistics. And if you don't believe that the OP is me, I'll post on that thread and prove it. Notice that the date that thread was made was well before this debate even started. Disregarding the link, even a basic amount of common sense disproves all of this in an instant. Do I have to provide a picture my permission to homeschool from the State of Georgia so that you will believe me? "1. It hasn't reached the voting period, so bare assertion fallacy." I thoroughly expect to be votebombed by people like darkkermit and royalpaladin for "cheating." Nobody can argue with the nutfucks when the nutfucks are committed to their course of action. Fortunately there are some people on here who don't reward semantics or desperate accusations. "2. You didn't lose any advice, see your forum for more details." I wanted multiple, unbiased statistics. I didn't get them on the thread. "3. I did think things through. It took me a while to construct that argument." Clearly. "5. I have been here on DDO longer than you and participated in more debates. Simply because you do not like what I have to say, does not justify blatant insults." I wouldn't even be mad if not for the idiotic cheating accusations. Should have thought about it a little harder before doing that, am I right? My opponent has failed to justify his actions whatsoever. He has simply restated his position and demanded that I conform to his arbitrary definiton of success. I ask all debaters- when was the last time you saw a debate on one subject be switched to another and voted for the semantics? When I first came on DDO, I tried it and lost spectacularly. Semantics never work. Why can't you understand that?