Biological weapons are a fallacy

Pro has not addressed their contradictions as pointed out by Con adequately. Pro has not provided any evidence or arguments in this entire debate and as such has not fulfilled the burden of proof, or, in fact, any proof or evidence to support any case whatsoever. Pro has contradicted themselves with every argument made and has agreed with all of Cons points, which were supported by evidence. Rebuttals:1.) Correct, the instigator decides what the question is about. In the title and with their opening in Round 1. Not in Round 4 as Pro has just done. The topic, while unclear, becomes quite obvious when reading Pro's First Round Statement, which I now will analyse:"I propose that biological weapons can never be made" Main Proposition"because germs do not cause disease" Reason/'evidence'"Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind" Claim"Reason - they don't work" Reason/argumentative supportPro cannot claim that the main intend of this statement was to claim that biological weapons do not work. The linguistics do not add up to this proposal, whether Pro would like it to or not. It is clear that this debate was by no means about, as Pro stated, "whether biological weapons are effective or not". Otherwise Pro's first statement would have looked something like this:'I propose that Biological weapons are not effective'. Did Pro do this? No. Did Pro write anything along those lines? No. So Pro cannot claim that this debate is about a topic that suits Pro after 4 rounds and then starts claiming that "the contender has no excuses for not knowing what the debate is about". Pathetic. Seemingly Pro does not know themselves what their own debate is about. "My opponent is quite obviously fearful of conducting a fair debate and wants to derail the debate with side issues" I provided evidence. Pro did not. I did not contradict myself. Pro did. Pro agreed with my statements, contradicting themselves from what they stated in round 1. Sorry, doesn't work like that...2.) What a useless point being an ad hominem attack and nothing else. I was merely debating, presenting evidence and waiting for Pro to provide counter evidence, or in fact any evidence at all. This did not happen. As such, my claims are still standing. And now Pro is attempting to pretend like this debate is about something else.3.) Pro stated that these were biological weapons just one round prior. What is it now? "My opponent claims that trained dogs and dolphins can be viewed as biological weapons. Very true, and have been used many times in battle" Also, "When I am talking about biological weapons, I am referring to laboratory produced viruses which can kill humans", maybe Pro should have stated this earlier. In round one I defined Biological Weapon as "a harmful living thing (such as a germ that causes disease) used as a weapon in a war". This could be any living organism that is used in warfare in a deliberate manner and as such made into a weapon. Pro could have spoken out against this in round 2. Did this happen? No. Pro stated this in round 5. Maybe a little too late. Like 4 rounds too late. In addition, what about the earlier mentioned anthrax? Pro did not refute that anthrax could not kill, but admitted the whole thing happened, this anthrax most definitely suits Pro's late definition, yet Pro has nothing to say about this other than Pseudoscience and Conspiracy Websites with no evidence for any of their claims."My opponent knows this, but he is playing a little pretend game of manufactured ignorance.". How am I supposed to know this? Pro never stated any of this prior, but agreed with me. And in the last round Pro claims that I knew all along. Logic?4.) No, that is not my opinion. That is my knowledge, stemming from being brought up by a university professor in an extremely academic setting and studying at university. Provide credible evidence for your claims or I don't care about what you say, as it is merely opinion and in not proven factual. Also, what an amazing ad hominem. "My opponent clearly doesn't understand the English language and makes constant contradictions and foolish remarks. Voters, please note - the poor quality of my opponents debating skills.." Where are those contradictions? Please quote, and not just claim something. Oh right, they aren't actually there. Pro just made that up....As for my apparent incapability of the English language:I meant schematics, as written there. Schematics is defined as 'of or relating to a scheme or schema', while scheme is defined as 'to make plans to do or get something in a secret and often dishonest way', which is exactly what Pro is doing. Also, another amazing ad hominem. Yeah, have a good laugh voters. How professional. Conclusion:Pro contradicted themselves in a wide variety of ways. Pro's Round 1, which was the most important, Pro stated that:"I propose that biological weapons can never be made" In Round 4: "Every fool knows that biological weapons exist" A weapon has to be made into a weapon, used as a weapon. It is not a weapon by default. The definition of 'weapon' makes that quite clear. 'a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage'. If firearms were never used to kill anyone but solely used for target shooting, they would not be weapons. The same goes for biological weapons. They have to, in one way or another, be made or utilized to injure/kill. As such, Pro has contradicted themselves. "Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind"In Round 4: "My opponent claims that trained dogs and dolphins can be viewed as biological weapons. Very true, and have been used many times in battle"Clear contradiction. Pro refuted themselves. Over all, Pro neither provided evidence, fulfilled a Burden of Proof, nor made any statements that were not contradicted later. Con provided evidence against Pro's first round statement and Pro even agreed, only to later state that the debate was not actually about what Pro had stated in round one. Kind regards, thanks to all readers and voters.