pro should have won this debate

I wish him good luck in this debate and in future ones. Politeness In the previous round I made a statement that my opponent had “only refuted one part of one of the three questions that make up this question as a whole”. The question I was referring too was about the most convincing argument. The three questions are organization, analysis, and refutation. The only part my opponent challenged is politeness, which is only one small part of analysis. My opponent takes issue with the fact that I only responded to 1 of his 4 statements. The reason I responded to any of his statements on this was to be polite. Because my case on organization and refutation were not challenged they are conceded, and even if we give my opponent analysis he still loses 2 out of the 3 questions that make the most convincing argument, therefore he loses most convincing argument. I did not need to uphold my case on analysis because my main point was already sustained. However I decided to go into politeness anyway to give my opponent a tip for future debates. It does not affect my case against the resolution. Conceded Argument My opponent states that my claim was “imposable”. My claim was that “Pro did not make the argument my opponent claims”. I clarified in the beginning that “my opponent” is referring to Pro in this debate, and “Pro” is referring to the debate in question. The point I was making was that the arguments were never made in the first place. Copying and pasting incomplete arguments do not change the incompleteness of those arguments. My opponent states that Mark Twain’s immortality of the Jew comments explain how the statement is a fulfilled prophecy. I suppose this could be the case if Jews were actually immortal. Since immortal means that they live forever, I guess he is saying that Jews don’t die. Since I know a couple of Jews that have died this statement appears to be false. My opponent apparently feels that an obviously false claim is a fulfilled prophecy. If there is some other meaning to this phrase my opponent or Pro never explained it. My opponent states that Con should have made the point I did concerning the fact that Pro never provided the quote he based his argument on. Con would have been better off for pointing this out but it was not necessary. You can not convince any reasonable reader that a quote is true without providing them the quote. There is no reason for anyone to vote for Pro based on this. My opponent states that he thought the connection between a fulfilled prophecy and evidence of God is obvious. In fact it is not. This point alone is highly debatable. Pro can not expect the reader to agree with his premises, for the premise in any debate is likely where the disagreement is. Conclusion As we can see this debate has boiled down to miniscule points that make little difference in who should have won the debate. My opponent conceded most of my case against why he did not make the most convincing argument, and relied mostly on his case that Con conceded Pros argument. But Pro never successfully made an argument for Con to have conceded. The instigator has the burden of proof, and in the debate in question Pro has the responsibility to draw all of the necessary connections to make his argument in order to expect a lack of refutation to be considered a concession, which he did not. My vote justifiably goes to Con. (I am optimistic yours will too)