Obviously, you've heard of a strawman but have no idea what it is.

If you read my comment you would actually see that I defined a strawman in context...

Wikipedia defines a straw man as:
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. "

You want swathes of the population to be poorly educated because their parents are poor and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Again strawman fallacy, this has nothing to do with the position I took nor did I ever even remotely suggest something like this.

No strawmen required; that's what's at stake with these policies.

Except for the strawman arguments that you are using?

Hopefully you'll get the picture but as for the sophomoric trading of insults and fallacy definitions, I'm saying good night.

Trading of insults? What are you talking about? It is very clear you have been engaging with fallacies, as you have not addressed any substance of my comments. Instead, you are arguing refuting things I never even remotely brought up AKA a straw man.

It is clear you aren't able to defend your position, and that you would rather argue in emotion and fallacies. For that reason, I am ending our conversation. Have a great night.