Biological weapons are a fallacy

Kind Regards for your reply. I will keep this round short(er), as there is not too much to say.Arguments and Rebuttals:Pro has just lost this debate by, in the last round, admitting that Biological Weapons exist and is now attempting to pretend like this debate was about the effectiveness of biological weapons..I quote Pro from round 1: "I propose that biological weapons can never be made". I quote Pro from round 4: "Every fool knows that biological weapons exist". Are these arguments not in clear contradiction of each other? Furthermore I quote Pro from round 1: "Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind"Now to comparison round 4: "In a battle situation, the dogs are too scared to run to the tanks and mostly run back to their owners who have to shot them to save their own lives"Once again, a clear contradiction. In the same breath Pro is stating that "They are appalling bad and ineffective weapons" (but seemingly they do 'work' in one sense or another), when compared to round 1 "they don't work!".As for 'made weapons', it is to note that the distribution of infected fleas through 'flea bombs' has to be seen as a 'made' weapon. These fleas would not have been infected, had they not been 'made' that way, nor would they have infected anyone, had they not been made into a weapon and named weapon had been used. Pro does not deny that this happened. Now to a few rebuttals.2.) This is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. See above. "my opponent is playing a deceitful game of pretending that the knowledge of biological weapons is a secret." Oh my... Really? In round one I openly displayed evidence that biological weapons exist and have been made after Pro stated "biological weapons can never be made". "It is deceitful and counter productive to use the title of a debate as the only source of the arguments area of concern.". No. If your Debate title is 'Cats are better than dogs' and you then debate on Pro that 'Dogs are better than cats' you are contradicting yourself. Furthermore, looking at Pro's round 1 it becomes very clear that this debate is not about the effectiveness of Biological Weapons. "I propose that biological weapons can never be made because germs do not cause disease. Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind. Reason - they don't work!"Where do you even interpret that out of? It simply is not there and Pro is grabbing this argument out of thin air as Pro cannot win the debate by presenting any arguments and now is attempting to win via schematics. 3.) As above, Pro admitting that Biological Weapons have been used in battle, after stating in round 1 that "Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind." and for once is even using a, even if not scholarly, reference which is not proposed by conspiracy theorists who go against everything science tells them. 4.) I will not even bother rebutting this as Pro will simply make something up to rebut my argument. Either provide evidence or don't rebut. I do not care about opinion. Just to put this out,Antoine Bechamp's germ theory is not seen as factual by any serious scientist. It's like arguing with a creationist 'scientist'... In over 100 years the opinion and evidence towards Bechamp's theory has not changed. Does this not kind of hint at something? Maybe that it is not correct?5.) Once again, opinion. No evidence. No rebuttal supported by evidence that Cons (evidence supported) case is incorrect. Also, so what if they are more corrupt than other governments? The Japanese are not even denying this. They are admitting it! And just to top it, the Japanese are less corrupt than the U.S. (https://www.transparency.org...). Or does this not apply as they are, as stated by Pro in round 3, "stupid Japs"? 6.) Really? "Thus, he is a lazy debater".. At least I can supply evidence. And actually have won debates on here. "prefers to find legal loop holes" Duh.. I study law.... "He shuns logic and misquotes my references many times.". And where is the evidence for this?? I corrected Pro on an incredible misquote. Show me where I misquoted anything. "My opponent is running out of ideas and evidence and has resorted to skulduggery to win the debate.". Once again, at least I can provide evidence. To win a debate you need to have evidence that your case is correct. Depends on case to case, but for this debate this most certainly is correct.Conclusion:Once again, no evidence from Pro, other than one that contradicts with previous statements (as seen above). Pro has effectively contradicted themselves, lost the debate and now is pretending that this debate actually is about something totally different. Sorry, when I look at the debate title and Pro's first round, it is very clear that this debate is not about the effectiveness of biological weapons, but Pro stating that "biological weapons can never be made" (=do not exist) and "Biological weapons have never been used in a battle situation in the history of mankind"Pro has admitted that both these are incorrect in this round, with, I quote, "Every fool knows that biological weapons exist" and "trained dogs and dolphins can be viewed as biological weapons. Very true, and have been used many times in battle."In this spirit, kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round.