Pick your own debate 2!

My opponent's final list of counterpoints are nothing but a rehash of assertions that he has consistently failed to substantiate throughout this entire debate. 1. My opponent begins by stating that I provided a blatant misrepresentation. I have provided a structural formula for the wording of this debate, detailing exactly what it meant. Instead of pointing out the flaw in my analogy, my opponent simply states that it is wrong, with no justification whatsoever. 2. My opponent states that MG and IAAD had differing arguments and that objectively, IAAD's interpretation took precedence. What my opponent fails to understand is that PRO's job is to uphold the burden and CON's job is to discredit PRO. 3. Although MG was arguing his interpretation of the resolution, it is still a valid interpretation. He did not have to use any semantic tricks or change any definitions in order to do so, it said what it said and I illustrated how it was valid. My opponent has said nothing to attack the core of my explanation. I have already detailed above how IAAD's arguments were more or less self defeating, how his rebuttals towards MG's arguments on morality were little more than dismissals, how he never exactly addressed the fact that MG was arguing a resolution interpretation he did not mean, and how his sources were faulty in proving his most vital of points: That steroids don't really benefit in a way that makes a difference, and that most ballplayers were using steroids. 4. My opponent then rebuts my assertion that IAAD has no credible source simply by pasting IAAD's source. What my opponent failed to understand is that I was attacking the credibility of his single provided source on the rampant use of steroids, not the existence of it. All he has is hearsay, in other words, the accounts of others. He has provided no data, no statistics. He has no definition of the word "rampant", which could mean 10 or 100 or 100. He has provided *nothing*, and this is the most important point in his resolution. Even if he were debating against a brick wall with this point, he should not win, as he has absolutely no credibility in his statements. Without that point, he can't win the debate as he completely fails to uphold his burden. ***FURTHER CLARIFICATION*** MG and IAAD's resolution takes the form of "A should do B". Whenever we have such a resolution, it dictates some sort of moral accountability. WHY should we do this? Why should we NOT do this? The resolution can be broken down simply to whether or not we should hold something as legitimate. My opponent states that moral implications have nothing to do with the rules. That's true. However, if my opponent looked more carefully, he would see that the core of the resolution is the word "should". This indicates that the debate is inherently about whether or not an act SHOULD be done in accordance to some moral code. IAAD chose to use, as his moral ruler, how well one can still compare one player to another. He says that the comparisons are still legitimate because steroids don't affect baseball skill much, and because everyone was using them. MG chose to use, as his moral ruler, the societal repercussions of holding those scores as legitimate. He mentions that doing so would promote dishonesty, punish integrity, and tarnish baseball. IAAD is dismissing MG's arguments based on his own moral ruler. As another analogy to explain this, The resolution would be "Jews should be placed into concentration camps". IAAD would argue that they should, because they are a great manual labor force. MG would be arguing that doing so, violates natural rights. IAAD would then dismiss MG's arguments because they have nothing to do with how great a labor force the Jews would be. Is this a valid dismissal? No. And that is exactly what my opponent is supporting. CONCLUSION: My opponent makes a bad habit of stating that he disagrees and not bothering to explain why. My analysis still stands, as I have broken down the resolution into a clear-cut way and explained in great detail why MG's interpretation is right. My opponent has done nothing but boldly deny this, without any structured argument in return. Throughout this entire debate, my opponent makes the same mistake that IAAD made: Both forget that they are PRO, but argue as if though they are CON. Both argue under an incorrect assumption that was corrected by their opponent. Both have argued blindly with nothing but baseless repetitions, dismissing their opponent's rebuttals. Both have dedicated their debates to incorrectly rebutting their opponent and not establishing their case. My opponent has not met his burden, I have shown that MG and IAAD's debate is a tie, if not a win for MG. Thank you.