Arguing over things you can not prove or disprove is useless.

I'll go in order of him posting the responses.His response to my second use is weak at best, not even a refutation more realistically. His response is, and I quote, "I would like to try to negate the second use by saying that we can prove skill people prove skill every day playing video games or running track or playing sports it can be proven by the winning person or debate the person who won is clearly more skillful."First, this isn't even a response, rather just restating what my argument is (which he goes onto later quote explicitly).Secondly, whether we can determine who's more skillful through playing video games or running track is irrelevant since we're talking about debate. You can't determine who's better at debating by having them play rock-paper-scissors. Third, apparently I contradicted myself somehow, somewhere. But my opponent never explains a) what I contradicted, b) where I made the contradiction, or c) how it's actually a contradiction. So since he basically just says "You contradicted yourself), I get to make the fun response: Nuh uh!And since that basically wraps up the responses to the second use, I get to extend it out as clear or any kind of responses. The argument is really clear and intuitive. In a debate on if two plus two equals four, there's no skill involved since it's a truism. There's a provable side, which removes any element of skill invovled to win: even the most incompetent debater can prove it and even the most skilled debater could not disprove it since it's simply true. If you remove that element of provability and leave a debate up for both sides that cannot be explicitly proven or disproven, it leaves room for the more skilled debater to win the debate, therefore meaning that we can use debating over things that can't be proven or disproven to determine, out of two debaters or teams of debaters, who is more skilled at debating. Let's go to the first use then. He starts with this elaborate example of a world in which two people flipped a coin, and three sides spawned massive argument for the outcome of that coin flip: heads, tails, or on it's side. I mean, it was a nice read, but it doesn't matter because there's no actual impact of a coinflip on every day life (unless that coin flip was to determine if, like, the US would nuke everyone else, but not only is that a provable or disprovable resolution--it doesn't matter if you disagree that a coin landed on heads if it landed on heads--, it's not resolutional, so let's get back on topic here).His real argument is that probability doesn't really matter if it doesn't have an impact on your life. I bring up the example of the God debate that directly responds to this: whether God probably exists or doesn't probably exist has a massive impact on our lives since there are clear-cut tenants on how one ought to live their lives and conduct themselves (not to mention if we figured out that God existed, pretty much all governments would become Theocracies). He responds to this by saying that it wouldn't have mattered if the religion didn't become mainstream (because if we didn't know about the religion, we wouldn't discuss it), but this response doesn't make sense. First, it wouldn't matter if the religion was mainstream or not: if the Christian god existed, it wouldn't really change anything whether I was aware of Christianity existed or not. I'd still be a sinner if I raped someone or had sex outside of wedlock.Secondly, the point doesn't even matter because religion is mainstream anyway. It is, therefore it's there for us to discuss.Thirdly, it doesn't even matter if we weren't aware of it's possible existence or not because we could still debate it. Hypothetical realities or situations are debated all the time. Fourthly, it wouldn't really matter if we weren't aware of Christianity, because there are loads of other religions for us to debate over. So at the end of the day this point still stands. We can debate things that aren't proven or disproven to argue about the probability of it being true or false. And to introduce a new argument in an entirely different vein (I can still do this because my opponent has plenty of time to respond to it with his last round): How does one determine if something is useful or useless? Where is the brightline on what we consider useful and what we consider useless? And who's viewpoint are we using to determine this brightline? My point being: determining whether something is useless or not is impossible to objectively do for the following reasons:First, there's no brightline on what qualifies as useful and what qualifies as useless. If it can only be used for one thing is it useless? If I'm an aerospace engineer, is a soccer ball useless, despite it being useful for soccer players?Second, there's no objectivity on what is useful or useless. A cellphone may be useful for me to have, but it might not be useless for an aboriginal person or an amish person. Third, it ignores the possibility for new information to come to light that gives us new perspectives into the way things work. If we consider x useless, then new information comes out that makes x highly useful, was it actually useless before or were we just not aware of it's use until now? If it's impossible to definitively show what's useless or useful then the resolution becomes false. If we can't determine what's useless or useful, then we can't say that it's useless. This means you negate because I'm showing that the resolution ( Arguing over things you can not prove or disprove is useless.) is false, which is my resolutional burden as the con debater. This leaves three ways I'm winning the resolution:1) I'm showing that the resolution is, by default, false because it's impossible to prove something is definitively useful or useless, which makes the resolutional statement false. This functions before anything else in the debate as it's a discussion of the meaning of the resolution, which is something we need to understand before the debate can even take place. This means if I'm winning this argument, nothing else in the debate matters and you vote con before you evaluate anything else.2) I'm showing you two different uses in arguing for things that can't be proven or disproven: discussing probability and determining a superior debater. Neither are sufficiently responded to, if responded to at all, so are easy places to vote con. And all I need to do is win one of them, since if I'm showing that debating things that can't be proven or disproven has at least one use, then definitionally it cannot be useless, which means I win the debate.