Infinite Dimensions and a Dimensional Mind

It seems to be a common theme in modern science to throw upon others the burden of proof, even with the hard-problems I suggested. It's an illogical response to hard-problems, the fact that there is no stable evidence for them, is the foundation to hard-problems. If I said to Con that dream-states are more than chemical reactions, but a sensory experience as well, Con would request I present proof. I call this reliance on the argument, 'the burden of proof is on you', lack of individual wisdom. Con could not win this debate if the encore supporting his lack of wisdom was silenced. In fact, Con is not intelligent, Con relies on the common beliefs and automatic behaviour of audiences; of course people will clap to the "burden of proof", of course people laugh at the recital of a tale in which is mentioned the stone which the builders reject. Con also continues to be immature, saying that he doesn't understand some key points I made in my argument, and then continues to produce an argument against what he managed to decipher. The statement, "I don't understand", is not an argument, it's lack of an argument, and Con admits defeat when he claims he doesn't understands. Any argument Con makes for an imaginary argument after he claims his stupor, is void, the same goes for any judge who thinks similarly. In this round I direct Con to the parts in Round 2 he misunderstood, to give them more than a second thought. Let's move on to the content of Con's Round 2 argument. Con has stated "but he'll also need to demonstrate why it is a"better"definition than our current one". Con has misunderstood my argument countless times, and he is yet to interpret it correctly. I presume this is because he is comfortable with current scientific theory, or is trying to win this debate cheaply. "Dimensional theory", is not the name of my theory, but theories on dimensions. I'd like to take this time to highlight that Con does not give my arguments a second thought, but rather rushes, skim reading the face print and ends up arguing with his own imaginary friend. I have done exactly the opposite, for I respect Con's argument and debate in general. "I agree that dreams are inherently a "hard problem", but we cannot simply fill in our gaps of knowledge with whatever fantastical idea we wish." There's nothing wrong with dreams being 'fantastical', Con. It doesn't make the phenomenon less real. Con has failed to argue here, his statement truly does not make sense. "I agree dreams are inherently a 'hard problem', is fine, but "but we cannot simply fill in our gaps of knowledge with whatever fantastical idea we wish", is merely an opinionated resolution " a shout out to opinionated judges. "We can claim that dreams"may be"indicative of higher dimensions just as we can claim that dreams"may be"cast into our minds by the power of unicorns. Both statements are technically true, considering the "may be" portion, but that does not mean either one should be seriously considered without compelling evidence of some sort. " How are unicorns a 'hard problem'? Con is joking around, and I'm going to dismiss this argument based on immaturity. Responding to it seriously would be detrimental to my own, and the mind of any reader. Onto the Light section of his argument, since I have complete disbelief In what came prior. Con's misunderstanding, or Con's pseudo-debating is not intellectual discourse. Again, to reply would be stupid. "The opponent admits that "[he] can only [solve the light problem] through wordless perseveration, not formulating ideas with words..." This is fantastic in a personal experiential sense, but it has little purpose in a debate." We are supposed to be discussing"with words"whether infinite dimensions exist. Furthermore, Pro is supposed to be proving (with words) that infinite dimensions exist." Con, we are discussing with words, I'm not showing weakness to words, I simply stated that wordless perseverance may lead to understanding the dimension of colour. "While his experience may indicate to himself that there are many more dimensions than three, this is purely anecdotal evidence in this setting. Anecdotal evidence is largely worthless when it comes to seriously trying to prove or logically/evidentially imply something, as it cannot be repeated experimentially or experienced by any other person but the one it affected." As I have said to Con, I disagree that throwing about the burden of proof is not sensible conduct where hard-problems are concerned. The fact that dreams and colour are hard-problems, are critical to my argument. Con has agreed that dreams are a hard-problem, but continues to ask for the burden of proof. Judges, I will dismiss the rest of Con's argument, as his inability to understand is not an argument, but an easy way to escape the thought of my argument. I've read his Round 2 argument, and most of it is based on his own semantics in replace of my own. Personally, using my own judgement ability, I have won this debate, and I know the votes will go the opposite way. If you misunderstand anyone's argument, you shouldn't vote. I've spoken to highly intelligent people who understand, and acknowledge those who don't. As a judge, you should be able to compromise with both the Con and Pro argument.