Refusal of understanding, Proving the game is not fact.

Here are my final rebuttals."So as I have stated before, My opponent has absolutely no verifiable proof to support his claims that the "roast game" is a fact. Instead of adding argument or debate to the points I made, my opponent claims victim to fallacy that does not exist. In very short and quick conclusion, My opponent here has shown serious lack of argument or debate against his claim that his "roast game" is fact.I have proven why it is not fact as I had set out to do.My opponent has not proven his game as fact. And that dear readers is a fact"And so I stated before my opponent has committed 6 fallacies, those 6 fallacies are:1) Aggressive behavior with the person2) Red Herring3) Straw Man Fallacy4) Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person) 5) Appeal to Ignorance6) Appeal to Authority He also commuted another fallacy called Appeasement.Which was defined as "This fallacy, most often popularly connected to the shameful pre-World War II appeasement of Hitler, is in fact still commonly practiced in public agencies, education and retail business today, e.g. "Customers are always right, even when they're wrong. Don't argue with them, just give'em what they want so they'll shut up and go away, and not make a stink--it's cheaper and easier than a lawsuit." Widespread unchallenged acceptance of this fallacy encourages offensive, uncivil public behavior and sometimes the development of a coarse subculture of obnoxious, "assertive" manipulators who, like "spoiled" children, leverage their knowledge of how to figuratively (or sometimes even literally!) "make a stink" into a primary coping skill in order to get what they want when they want it. The works of the late Community Organizing guru Saul Alinsky suggest practical, nonviolent ways for groups to harness the power of this fallacy to promote social change, for good or for evil." [1]I debunked every argument he has made in both round 1 and 2. Here are my debunk arguments:1) I responded to his willfull ignorance to cite all the sources that were there to back up The Roast Game as fact by saying this, "First, That is not all the sources I have to prove that The Roast Game is Fact." Then, I show him all the 7 main sources to back it up as fact.2) As a response to his round 2 argument, I stated the 6 fallacies he has committed, which are (to cite again for voter analysis):1) Aggressive behavior with the person2) Red Herring3) Straw Man Fallacy4) Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person) 5) Appeal to Ignorance6) Appeal to Authority 3) After all those debunk arguments, he just goes back to his original point, thinking it would prove anything after me debunking all of his arguments.Here are my conclusions:1. The Roast Game is fact because there is plenty of evidence to back it up and it is indisputably the case.2. The Pro has made 6 fallacies.3. I made a more convincing argument.4. I did not insult my opponent in this debate.And most of all, The Roast Game is Fact!Here are all the sources I used in all my arguments:[1] http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.google.com...;[4] https://m.youtube.com...[5] http://www.debate.org...[6] http://www.debate.org...[7] http://utminers.utep.edu...[8] http://examples.yourdictionary.com...[9] http://typesof.com...[10] http://www.debate.org...[11] http://www.debate.org...Vote Con!