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

Unfortunately, my first argument will rely heavily on semantics, and while I despise that type of debate, the argument is valid and it would be silly not to post it. The second and third arguments have considerably more substance (or else I would not have accepted this debate). 1.The basic objection that any legalistic minded person would offer to such a topic: the only way the pro can affirm the topic is with some sort of survey showing that educated people do in fact believe argumentation more important than geography. I don't actually want any debate on this point. Unless the pro believes that he is not semantically obligated to offer evidence of this kind, I don't particularly care to debate this. I myself would not accept this as a voting argument; I am merely offering it as an opportunity for those who do. I do not contest that geography is not generally practical. However, I contend that much of what makes a person educated has nothing to do with practicality. In arguments two and three I will examine the role of geography and argumentation to the educated, and to being educated: the two possible interpretations of the topic. 2.Seemingly, importance TO the educated would easily go to argumentation. However, with a little reflection, we find that this is not the case. An educated person will obviously have little respect for a person unable to state his positions clearly and effectively. It must be pointed out, though, that they will have even less respect for someone who doesn't know that New York is the capital of New York or that Iraq is in the Middle East. An educated person will realize, upon reflection, that a person ignorant of geography has had deficient schooling and so is less worthy of respect, and they will also realize that lack of argumentation could easily be a flaw having nothing to do with education or even intellect. That educated person will call to mind the example of Thomas Aquinas, known to his classmates as the "Dumb Ox," or with the benefit of hindsight known as "Doctor Angelicus," "Doctor Universalis" and "Doctor Communis." An educated person knows that lack of argumentation implies practically nothing except lack of argumentation, while lack of geography clearly implies ignorance. 3.The preceding argument applies just as well to BEING an educated person. On top of that, being educated in no wise implies having any intelletual capacity at all, other than memory. Education means the imparting of knowledge, and in no way implies that the knowledge must be useful to the person. Clearly, a person ignorant of geography is not, in that respect, educated. At the same time, a person deficient in logos is not in the traditional sense in any way uneducated. I mention this partly as an aside, as my preceding arguments clearly do not apply to the logos aspect of argumentation. I still feel it is unnecessary to cover every aspect of the term "argumentation," as the general rebutal is best, but as long as I have the argument, I may as well give it. I would just like to say as a post script that I am aware that Albany is the capital of New York. If you found my argumentation lacking in substance, I hope you at least admit that my error regarding the state capital of New York far more blatant and annoying.