Is the Qu'ran scientifically proven

We have reached the end of the debate, and still, my opponent's own fallacies in logic continues to support the fact that the qur'an challenge does in fact scientifically prove that it is the true word of Allah(God). As demonstrated, my opponent openly admits and acknowledges that he himself failed the challenge from his mouth himself. I quote his own words, "Indeed, I myself fail the challenge".Here, we see from my opponent's own mouth that the challenge is valid, for he himself admits that he failed the challenge, thus proving that it is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using human-mande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people. As a result, his own failure supports the fact that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah. Why? Once again, the reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use human-made speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s and conquer a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah. Yet my opponent persists on denying the obvious and in another attempt to justify his denial, he presents the following rebuttal: "...you draw a flawed conclusion from my failure. Would you claim that a single person represents teh entirety of the human race? I would assume not, but if so I guess this point is moot. By viewing a single entity in the vastness of the human race one cannot draw a conclusion regarding the whole. However, this is exactly what you do, you say: 'Again, the challenge is for YOU YOURSELF to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, or even just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literatue that goes against the wants of a mass of people, as proof that such an act is humanly possible' ." My opponent argues that despite his failure to answer the challenge, it is illogical to conclude that all of humanity will fail as well based on his own failure to the challenge because he is only one person. Yet such an argument is flawed. For the psychological and human nature of all humans are the same and similar in characteristics. Therefore, it is very much logical to conclude whether something is humanly impossible or not based on the test subject of one human since all humans are the same and similar in nature regarding their natural psychological characteristics. This is evident by the fact that being a psychiatrist is a credible profession, in which a psychiatrist helps their patients with psychological concerns with certain methods used for all of humanity. This could not be done if the human psychological nature of every person was different because that would contradict the fact that psychology is based on the psyche of all humans. Simply put, your own failure as to whether something is humanly impossible is a reflection of all of humanity. This is basic science. When a scientists discovers the psychological nature of a lion family or a lion, they do not test every single lion on the planet. They test one or a few. For such is enough to conlude the nature of all lions since all lions are the same and similar in their natural and psychological characteristics. If I cut myself deeply with a knife and bleed, is it illogical for me to conclude that every person who does the same will bleed as well? Of course not. Why? Because every human shares the same physical elements that makes up their skin. So since it is shared with all humans, then I can conclude that the result of myself bleding from a deep cut with a knife will happen to EVERY human. Similarly, the failure of your own self or just a few people as to whether it is humanly possible to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation using human-made speech/literature that goes against the likes of those people is enough to conclude so for all of humanity since all humans are the same in human nature regarding our natural and psychological characteristics. And since the test itself provides a hands-on eyewitness account as evidence and not hearsay, then once again, your own failure to the challenge supports that fact that the qur'an challenge does scientifically prove that it is the true word of Allah. To prove otherwise would require other hands-on eyewitness accounts, rather than the hearsay arguments that my opponent has presented thus far, for hearsay is not more credible than a hands-on eyewitness account. Since my opponent has not, then such inability to do so supports the fact that the Qur'an challenge proves that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(God).Then my opponent tries to justify the presidency of Obama as answering the Qur'an challenge by stating:"You put no qualifications on what qualifies someone as a follower or not, Since this is the case, a voter = follower." This is clearly flawed logic. Words are defined by their definition. So the logic that I am obligated to give a definition is flawed, Furthermore, not a single dictionary on the planet defines the word "follower" as "voter". So the claim that the voters of Obama are the followers of Obama is clearly absurd logic, thus proving nothing in answering the challenge. Again, voters of Obama are not folowers of Obama, as the Presidency of Obama was granted based on the law of election, which is a law that Obama did not create, but was put into practice based on the consensus of elected officials and the public. Thus the voters cannot be followers of Obama since the law to elect a president comes from the public themselves, not Obama. Thus the public is following their own democratic laws. Democracy is shared authority. No one is a follower of anyone, but rather authority is shared. Even the President cannot pass a law without the consensus of Congress, thus proving that Obama does not have any followers. It's a democracy. Another example of my opponent's failed rebuttals.Unfortunately character limitation prevents me from further refuting the flaw logic of my opponent, so let me conclude by restating what he could not refute. Dear audience, if I came to you with a ball and stated that the ball will not bounce and presented scholars and historical references as proof and you yourself took the ball and bounced it yourself as evidence that the ball can bounce, which is proof that the ball can bounce? My scholarly and historical evidence, or the fact that you personally demonstrated from your own actions and witnessed with your own eyes from your own actions that the ball can bounce? Clearly the latter, since it is a hands-on eyewitness account.My opponent's own admission that he himself failed the challenge further supports the fact that Obama or the Children's Crusade is not proof that the challenge is invalid, because the examples are hearsay, while his own admission to failure comes from a hands-on eyewitness account. I ask you, dear audience, which is more credible as evidence, a hands-on eyewitnes account or hearsay? The answer is clearly obvious that a hands-on eyewitness account is more credible than hearsay. So my opponent's own failure of the challenge proves that the challenge is humanly impossible, which means that his argument on Obama and the Children's crusade answering the challenge fails since he himself became an eyewitness to the fact that the challenge is impossible. Again, his own eyewitness account to failing the challenge as impossible proves that any hearsay that it was answered by Obama and the Children crusades is false, because hearsay is not more credible than a hands-on eyewitness account. Even my opponent himself has yet to deny this, thus further proving that the challenge does scientifically prove that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(God).