Most likely, the human race will not last much longer

The BOP is on my opponent to prove that the human race will not last much longer. "My argument is probably like nothing you've seen before. It's an experimental theory"As we agreed, my opponent believes that most likely the human race will not last much longer. Based on this statement, my opponent seems to contradict himself and this could be interpreted as a forfeit.I gave my case, however, I'm not sure if it's correct. I posted it in this debate to see if you could poke any holes in its logic. However, it's not up to me to help you out in this debate. Just because this is an experimental theory does not mean it's false. I have given my reasoning and I believe it leads to my resolution. You have to give a reason why it's false. How could an "experimental theory" be the same as a legitimate assumption or in other words "most likely"? 'Most likely' refers to the human race not lasting much longer. It's unproductive to include the 'oh, this theory might be false' into the argument and mix it up with the thing I'm arguing. If you don't understand your fallacy here, I'm afraid I will have to find another person to debate with. This theory is quite complex and I really want someone who understands it to take a look at it. You do realize how long it will take for the world to start getting crammed? Have you felt that there were too many people on Earth? Even if there were, have you ever felt that it has affected you to the extent that you would die? Have you ever felt that it is too big that all of those billions of people you mentioned will die also?From this, I can tell you don't understand my argument. The human race could consist of five people and it wouldn't make my theory any less credible. "Therefore, it is mathematically likely that the human race is more than half over (time-wise), and mathematically likely that the human race is about half way through all the people to ever be born"Unestablished and unproven point.No it's not. Why would you be any less likely to be born somewhere in the middle of all humans to exist than to be born with an IQ of around 100? You need to provide an argument against this. I have provided my case for why this is correct. I don't think a nuclear weapon exists that can destroy every human. And anyway, wouldn't the person who launched the nuclear weapon be alive(Unless he committed suicide and wanted to eradicate the Earth and everyone which is highly unlikely as opposed to "most likely")?The human race has to end someway. Otherwise, there would be an infinite amount of humans to have existed and it would be nearly mathematically impossible (actually impossible) to have been born so close to the beginning of the first human. My arguments and conclusion: I have short points I would like to add. Development: If you look at how much science, technology, medicine etc. has developed, it is unpredictable how many more improvements will come in the future. Based on my opponent's argument which is basically saying that there will be too many people and everyone would die, that is a bad argument. If the Earth got too crowded, and everyone started killing each other, they will eventually stop once the Earth is not too crowded anymore (Again I am responding to a very unlikely scenario and my opponent is suppose to provide a "most likely" scenario).From reading your conclusion, I can tell you have no idea what my argument even is. " my opponent's argument which is basically saying that there will be too many people and everyone would die, that is a bad "This is not at all what I am arguing. Please actually read my idea. It has absolutely nothing to do with overpopulation.