pro should have won this debate

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. I hope to fulfill his desire for an enlightening challenge, which I am confident I can provide. To avoid confusion, especially in later rounds I will refer to my opponent as just that; “my opponent”. Anytime I use the words “Pro”, or “Con” I am referring to the debate we are discussing. My opponent states that his argument was 100% dropped as his support for the resolution. The argument he referred to was R4a. Yet I can not find any argument in R4 entitled “a”, so I am left with no argument to refute. With that said, I will now move on to my counter argument, the first point of which will further address this. I anticipate that this debate will focus heavily on the substance of the arguments for God and Judaism, but I will start with a few points about debating. I assume that for this debate we will be discussing the question of “most convincing argument”. DDO has set out guidelines to how this is determined which asks us (the voters) to analyze 3 different aspects of the debate(1): Organization - Which debater organized their arguments the best, creating an easily understood and readable path to follow? This is a major factor in any debate. Substance is obviously very important, but it doesn’t matter what you say if no one can understand you. To be more convincing you must first gain the readers attention. One of the issues with Pros argument is that it was very unclear. There were very few contentions, summaries or conclusions. Paragraphs ran way to long and were not spaced leaving an additional challenge to the reader. Organization is extremely important because it helps the reader focus their attention on understanding the argument as opposed to figuring out what the argument is. Contentions and paragraph separation for example allow the reader to better understand the context of what is being said, which is always crucial in communication. It also allows the reader to go back and analyze a point that they may feel the need to read again. In this debate Con used Pros quotes to separate ideas and make his points effectively. Pro appeared to lump his arguments together leaving the reader to have to work much harder to understand what argument is being made. This point clearly goes to Con. Analysis - Which debater, on balance, did a better job of clearly explaining their arguments and of exposing the weakness of their opponent's arguments? This point is highly subjective so I will use Pros quote taken straight from the debate (round 5) to illustrate my opinion: “I apologize for all of this I am extremely frustrated at my inability to get this message across. I am trying every way I can think of. Perhaps it can only be grasped with time or age. If anyone has any specific problems please put it in the comments section and I will respond” I think my opponents need to make this point says it all. Refutation - Which debater critically analyzed their opponents' arguments the best and developed clear, appropriate, and understandable responses? This is the main point I found from this debate. To understand the substance of what was said I will start Pos resolution, clarified in round 1: “I argue that there is evidence for the validity of Judaism. mainly that there is a god, and he dictated the old testament.” Pro made his burden very clear. In this debate he is to provide evidence to support that God dictated the Old Testament, which of course can only be valid if there is valid evidence that God exists. Throughout this debate Pro showed what he perceived to be evidence which was all adequately refuted by Con. Thus, Pro failed to satisfy his burden and therefore Con rightfully won this debate. I have more to say on that, but at this point I will leave it to my opponent to show which parts of my conclusion were inaccurate, so that we can keep this debate focused on the disagreements between my opponent and I. (1) http://www.debate.org...