Our past doesn't define us

Despite all my attempts, my opponent has still not understood the nature of this debate. Therefore I have to repeat myself. My opponent claims that: "Considering that the title of this debate is 'Our past doesn't define us' therefore my opponen is for that and I am against that in all aspects. " That is not how debates even work. In many cases the topic might be too difficult to fit in the title, and thus the person starting the debate explains the topic in detail during the first round. This is what I did. Indeed, the title is "Our past doesn't define us" but in my very first argument (even before Con accepted the challenge) I ruled that the topic of this debate is explicitly, and exclusely "the justification of other people basing their opinion about you on your past actions". My first round text is very short, and the topic is clearly stated. If the opponent has a problem with the topic of the debate, she should have stated it before accepting. One cannot accept a debate and then change the topic for their liking. As in earlier rounds, my opponent did not present any actual arguments considering the topic of this debate. She bases her argument on the fact that "people will judge you according to your past" and presents an article which supports this. Nor the article or her argument present any points as to why it is justified for a person to be judged according to his/her past. My opponent misses the topic of this debate once again. In the end my opponent presents an interesting point, one that actually is about this argument. She argues that it is justified to see an accused rapist as a confirmed rapist even before he would have been convicted: "To change the system would be to accommodate for men wrongly accused would only help those who actually commit rape" This statement is wrong. I linked an article on the second round which tells a story of a boy falsely accused of rape have his life destroyed completely. He ends up taking his own life. Later on his mother commits suicide as well. There are hundreds, if not thousands of stories like this. Is it right for people to judge you according to your past like this? Changing this would ONLY accommodate for those actually committing the rape? Seriously? "I have now proven that past experiences, past decisions and people will define you because of your past" The topic was not to prove they will define you, it was to debate about the justification of people defining you according to your past. CONCLUSION: In the 1st round I stated the topic of this argument. My opponent accepted the challenge and its terms, and in the 2nd round I presented arguments supporting my side of the debate. My opponent did not present any rebuttals to my arguments, and instead presented arguments of which none had anything to do with this debate. On the 3rd round I pointed out that my opponent misunderstood the topic of this debate, but she did not fix this, instead sticking to her arguments about a different topic. I see no reason to present any more points, and even if my opponent presents some of her own, it's too late for me to make any rebuttals as this is the final round. Thus, with only myself making any valid arguments, my opponent has lost this debate.