"This" clause is perfect and revelationary.

Arrogance is the one word I believe comes to mind when thinking of my opponent in this debate.Arrogant in assuming he has made the 'Perfect clause", (which he has still yet to acknowledge that he is incorrect with, but lets gloss over that, shall we?).He has then gone on a tangent with regards to where the debate was headed from my end - It is okay to divert the tangent, but not to do so by saying "I believe my opponent MENT to speak about this" and then, as you so adequately termed it in the comments "Throw me under the bus". I responded by showing where your strawman fallacy occurred, and instead of addressing the issue, you carry on trying to insinuate that I am the one in the wrong? Classic Trump tactic right there (ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT!)- I applaud your gumption to committing to the bit.Most people are cowed when they are shown that their attempt at subterfuge was revealed, you took it in stride and tried to use that against me again!1. For your claims of my false allegations to be acknowledged, you must reference them for it to be accepted. you cannot claim a blanket 'That whole round was false' - as during that round, I addressed your points and raised more from them - Thus they cannot be under the allegation of making your allegations false - I was answering them.2. Explain why it is in fault. I provided mine, along with a link to explain why they were logical fallacies in my opinion.As my opponent failed to utilise their final round regarding the points I raised in tangent to where they were going, they are accepted by omission.With the above considered, I believe I have nothing new to raise.Summary :My opponent Claimed a perfect clause, I have proved this not to be the case, which has not been acknowledged by my opponent (Neither has it been refuted).I proceeded to attempt to prove that his claims of prophets and 'false prophets' are purely subjective, and asked for evidence to show the rest of the population which are made 'reputable' - This again was not refuted or acknowledged.I have shown that there is the possibility that NO prophet is reputable, and that they could ALL be using blackmail to get what they want, as none can accurately prove their words come from anywhere other than their own minds.My opponent balked at this statement, and went into 100% defensive mode, attempting to discredit my stance to smokescreen their failure to address my points.My opponent does not seem to recognize the Irony, balking at an impossible question, when that is exactly what I have done to initiate this argument with you.I did that, not by creating smokescreen and mirrors (Your very definition of a false prophet), but logic, reasoning and deductive thinking - I found one irregularity, and delved into the possibilities it opened up.My first step if i had been posed the question I posed to you, would be to find one reputable prophet, and explain why they are so reputable - from there the tangents into showing why you can be so sure is there, and you could have 'won' the debate.Closing statement:You have yet to show why anything you have said in this debate is valid, worth anything of note, or is credible in any way shape or form, and yet your last sentance before "I'll start this again tomorrow' is - "I win".I think we should leave that to the Voters.