No one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life.

First, id like to apologize, my answer will not be as complete as i would wish it to be, but my grandparents are flying home today, so i dont have time to post a full response. So the basic arguments that my opponent makes in his last speech are that: first my definition is flawed, next that everything will be proven wrong at some point, so i must prove everything ever to be correct to win, he also says some other things but these are mostly just expansions of the two arguments that he says above. There are several reasons that he will lose this round, the first being the definition debate It is always the one writing the topic to present definitions to what everything is, at the point that he didn't provide one, the responsibility falls onto me. He says that my definition is wrong in his next speech, but this is quite unfair for me. If he is justified in not defining what he means in his first speech, he can sever from his question at any point. This justifies him in saying that "no one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life", and then once i answer the question in my first speech, he can say "actually truth means the act of lying". Then i have no chance to win the debate. in addition, in this round itself, his definition would completely nullify my first speech. Thereby, you must regard this round in terms of my definition. the second reason i will win is this, because, remember from my first speech that i asked everyone to please regard dropped arguments as a reason to vote in either direction. essentially all my arguments are dropped although ill concede that some of what he said applies, but he did not do enough specific work on what i said: i will only point out the dropped arguments that are detrimental to him, the first being that he concedes that i think therefore i am. At the point that i am writing this statement, i cannot be a dream or nonexistent. the next huge point he concedes is the subjectivity of the universe. This is just gigantic, it is the theory that there can be different truths for people. he can believe that everything is a lie, and i can believe that everything is truth under this theory. Even if you believe this argument to be completely false, it is dropped by him, therefore meaning that he essentially agrees with this, meaning that you must vote for me. the next point is that he drops that his title is hypocritical within itself. Remember that he either believes that everything is a lie, meaning that he loses since he believes that one statement to be true. or that he doesn't believe everything is a lie, and simply states that, also meaning he loses. Even if you dont believe my logic here, he dropped this argument, meaning he agreed with it, meaning you vote con. now ill answer the part where he says i have the burden or proof. this is just ridiculous, first of all, the pro always has the burden of proof. Second he relies on empirical evidence, meaning he must prove all the empirical evidence to be true, if i prove just one to be false, he loses all of his evidence. And remember my example that grass exists in some form, shape or being, which he dropped meaning that he agrees with it, meaning that he can no longer relie on his empirical evidence, meaning that he loses. READ THIS I GUESS IF YOU DONT WANT TO READ ALOT OF STUFF Basically you must vote con b/c of the following reasons 1. He drops my examples that things actually exist, meaning that he has no empirical evidence, meaning he loses 2. he must either believe his title of this debate to be true or false, either way contradicting what he says, meaning he loses 3. This one is huge, he drops the theory of the subjectivity of the universe. Meaning that he agrees that we can simultaneously see things as true and false at the same time, proving him wrong. 4. It will destroy the fairness of debate if you look at the round from his definition which he introduces way to late into the round. He can skew my strat by severing out of specific words in his resolution, by redefining them. Voters - thank you for voting and commenting falsereality - thanks for a cool debate, even if it was about ontology which is probably the most headache inducing subject ever