Our past doesn't define us

My opponent seems to think that all my arguments are invalid based upon some muddy terms that he/she wrote on round 1. Let me say this again. The topic was "Our past doesn't define us". My opponent is the instigator (for) and I am the contender (against). Therefore I am for our past defining us and my opponent is for our past doesn't define us. If you go to the "start a new debate" link and click the link, the place where you write your topic is labelled "topic". [1] If you click the example, you can see clearly that the topic is the hypothesis of the instigators debate. Therefore, the topic of this debate is "Our past doesn't define us". My opponent so called "terms" are extremely muddy if not, completely contradicting with themselves. "My argument is that no matter what we have done in the past, it does not define our present selves. Con must argue that our past explicitly defines who we are at the present moment." That is what the instigator/my opponent wrote in the terms. And that is what I have done and so far my opponent has not refuted any of my points. Then my opponent states his/her other term which completely contradicts the first term. "And let's be clear: this debate is not about causality. It's not about the fact that your previous experiences and actions affect the decisions you make now. It's about the justification of other people basing their opinion about you on your past actions." My opponent then states that actually this debate is about people being justified for judging others upon their past. I have been well within the terms of the debate and so far my opponent has not refuted a single point of mine. I explained how past decision effect you in the present, how past experiences effect you in the present and people will judge you by your past. I have explicitly explained how the past defines who we are in the present. "Con must argue that our past explicitly defines who we are at the present moment." I have done that, I am not the one in the wrong. The instigator is. "My argument is that no matter what we have done in the past, it does not define our present selves." That is what the instigator had to do and so far the instigator has not done it yet. Therefore since it is the end of the debate, the instigator has automatically lost. Now I will explain how it is just to base your judgment upon people's past. My opponent brings up the fact that a man was accused of rape falsely. The case itself has nothing to do with the past because in the article it never stated that the man had past dealings with sexual assault. This was about the present and the fact that the mans wife lied. The mans wife lied about the rape and the mans life went into ruins, but people are not judging the man based upon his past. They are judging him because the woman made a claim against him. Therefore the case itself has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. My opponent has brought forth the wrong type of justice system article. The topic of men being accused falsely of rape has nothing to do with the topic of "Our past defines us". Men are falsely accused of rape and everyone believes the women because in most cases, men who are convicted are actually rapists. But that isn't technically the mans "past", that is the historical past. If the topic had been "the past defines us" then yes, men's rape cases would fit. Now it is perfectly just to base your judgement upon someone's past. A murderer who got out of jail recently will be judged by others. Do you call that unjust? That person murdered others and suddenly we should all just let our wariness of them go. What if they murder again? Then we'll be kicking ourselves telling each other "I told you so." How about terrorists? It is perfectly just to think that Al-Qaeda was bad because of 9/11. If what my opponent says is true, that it's unjust to base your opinion of something upon its past, then when we say Al-Qaeda was bad, were are committing something unjust. If what my opponent says is true, then all those who are in jail should be let free because what they did was in the past and we shouldn't judge them for it. Do you see how absurd that is? I have stuck to all of my opponents terms. Though my opponent has not stuck to his/hers. My opponent did not refute any of my points even though they were well within the boundaries of the terms. And I am allowed to refute my opponents points because that was not prohibited in the terms. I have explicitly explained how our past defines who we are and I have also explained how it is just to base ones opinion upon someone's past. [1] http://www.debate.org...