I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate

Note that while the contention is "I will NOT commit a logical fallacy", these "fallacies" are arguable and some can be misinterpreted. The basic premise, in reality, is to prove that I have not committed a logical fallacy in this debate, and prove that my previous arguments have no logical fallacies, and thus why I attempted to create an argument about why I would not commit a logical fallacy within this round. To address my opponent's arguments:1. All arguments are fallacious My opponent is wrong that "we know nothing about anything", as clearly contrasted by the famous philosopher's quote, "I think, therefore I am". If you think you are, then you are. It's as simple as that. In addition, my opponent is moving goal posts and making a broad statement too general that does not apply to this debate. This debate is merely about NOT committing logical fallacies on my side, so I do not have to "know everything". In addition, I only need to convince the audience (the voters) that I have not committed a logical fallacy and will not commit a logical fallacy. I may have tricked people, and I may use tricks, but if voters cannot spot any, and if my opponent does not point out any real fallacy made by me, there is no real substance in my opponent's arguments. My opponent tries to say the following: 1) Complexity might be random2) Our minds are complex3) We cannot know anything for certain if complexity is random4) If we cannot be absolutely certain about our arguments, they are fallacious First of all, even if you are not absolutely sure about something, it does not mean they are false. For example, I might be unsure about an author's name, yet naming up random names popping in my head just might get the right answer. In fact, if I outright guess the answer while still NOT being absolutely certain, the answer is certainly NOT fallacious. Furthermore, my opponent makes the leap from "might be random" to "complexity is random". He suggests complexity's plausibility as random. He does not outright state, "complexity is random", and thus, argument one and three do not connect together. He also doesn't even try to sufficiently support argument number two. What is the true meaning of complex? A computer could be complex. An "invention" could be complex. There's too much holes in my opponent's arguments that he does not support.2. Shortness is irrelevantMy opponent is right that I only need one round in order to commit a logical fallacy. However, let us assume that I somehow manage to create a "perfect round" short of logical fallacies. As I have stated before, this is extremely prone to sniping, as you can falsely accuse me and I can't even refute you. Therefore, I need two rounds to be ideal to refute you just in case you accuse me falsely of logical fallacies. Any more rounds, and I would be more likely to make logical fallacies as the law of the least action highlights any more rounds and logical fallacies might be committed more. It makes sense because there is a small chance to make logical fallacies even by accident, therefore I have to create just the right amount of rounds, which I managed.Awareness of fallacyI never said I was immune to make a logical fallacy, I just said I was extremely unlikely because I knew my logical fallacies and read my round over and over before submitting it. Even if I accidentally make a fallacy, when I read it over with a critical point of view, I will most likely find one. With multitudes of looking over and revising according to what could be accused as a logical fallacy on Wikipedia's page about those fallacies, there is practically no chance for my opponent to examine for fallacies which I have missed.Conclusion:I have not made a logical fallacy in round two because I explained why the rounds were just right for me to NOT commit a logical fallacy, and furthermore, I stated my personal experience with logical fallacies. My opponent has only accused me of one fallacy, which I have refuted because he makes illogical jumps in his arguments, in addition to the fact that I only need to make it look like I haven't committed a logical fallacy. If my opponent can't prove I made a logical fallacy, the voters will have no chance but to vote for me. And that is what they will do because I did not make a logical fallacy in this debate.