Prove me right

I am pleasantly surprised at the number of flaws I located in my opponent's arguments. 1) "nor does it provide any evidence that Germ Theory is flawed."; "Con has failed to demonstrate a plausible alternate theory to disprove Germ Theory."; "However, Con has not demonstrated any flaws"; "Con's "theoretically" possible explanation does not disprove nor identify flaws in any theory let alone Germ Theory." 2) "then it is my opinion that Con needs to better define the criteria of the debate before instigating it; an opponent can only understand the debate from what is written in round 1." 3) "It is not clear why Con is now stating that this was never stated." 4) "One has to find the flaws first then establish that an alternate theory can be acceptible; this is the very basis of a null hypothesis"; "not an overarching rigid paradigm that is designed to ascertain certainty." 5) "Or is this all just an illusion my mind has created for me???" 6) "how does stating that carrots causes disease provide evidence for his alternate theory or contradict Germ Theory?" 7) "The only necessity that I can see from Con's alternate theory is the necessity of having to forth some explanation to keep from forfeiting the round." 2) I have define the basis of this debate wholly in my opening argument. It is Pro's understanding of it that is unclear. I stated that Pro is to prove that it is possible to prove a theory. Pro, however, has been arguing, unintentionally, that a theory can be an accepted theory. 3) I never stated that I never stated that it is Pro's task to prove that it is possible to prove a theory. I only stated that it is not Pro's task to prove that a theory can be accepted or necessary. The sentence, "If a theory is to be proved, it is to be complete, for a proved theory must have no possible flaws, thus making it whole.", was not linked, in terms of reference, to the sentence, "As for "necessary" and "accepted", I did not mention that Pro is to prove his/her theory is either." Either is referring to "necessary" and "accepted", not to "proved". 4) a) Pro spelt acceptable wrong. b) A theory is not a null hypothesis. c) It is not a simple theory that must contain certainty, but proof. Proof can't be possibly flawed. No theory is proved or accepted in every situation. They are merely accepted in certain situations, e.g. particle wave duality. If it is accepted in every situation, it is accepted in the situation of a given alternative theory. Therefore, if the alternative theory is possible, the former theory is not proved. For a theory to be possible, it merely needs to contain evidence. The definition of theory is irrelevant to this debate. 5) Simply, yes. 6) The mere idea that eating carrots causes diseases does not contain evidence in itself. It is the theory which must be back up by evidence. 1+7) The necessity is that it explains our observations, bearing no evidence, of which it counters observations, against it. This is a form of evidence. I have given evidence, so there is a POSSIBLE flaw in my opponent's theory. In conclusion, the theory is not proved, or UNFLAWED, merely accepted, or necessary. Sources: The basis of the debate, the most reliable source possible. I don't risk possibly unreliable websites, other than dictionary websites. Even then, I use several to reinforce merely one. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.cambridge.org... http://oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... See: prove, disprove, accepted, necessity