Germ theory is a fraud

Thank you for that last round (I mean, I'm trying to be polite, but my opponent was a bit insulting).So here we go with responding to the last round.R1) My opponent commits an ad hominem fallacy, essentially calling me an idiot instead of explaining why my argument is illogical. The irony is that the entire response is a logical fallacy, meaning my opponent literally threw logic in the "rubbish bin."R2) Domestic animals do not tend to get rabies unless bitten by an animal in the wild. Rabies was in the evidence provided. I suggest my opponent read the evidence posted before attacking the evidence. So if we're proving points by omission, then my point is proven by my opponent's omission of an informed rebuttal.R3) My opponent asserts that the government and universities rely on germ theory to make a living. However, in order for this to be true, we need to ignore most of those organizations. The statement is so untrue that attacking it with the proper amount of evidence would take more than the character space allows, but let me give you the overview. The government primarily lives on taxes from income, sales, water, electricity, and other less common forms. These have nothing to do with germ theory. So what does the government lose by affirming germ theory? Not a whole lot.Universities primarily live off people paying to go to school there. I'm now going to name a few degrees that have nothing to do with germ theory:AccountingMarketingAdvertisingManagementHotel ManagementRestaurant ManagementChemistryCriminal JusticeMusic artsVisual ArtsGraphic DesignComputer SciencesEconomicsPublic RelationsEngineeringLawPreLawPsychologySociologyCulinaryThose are all the degrees I could think of off the top of my head. As you can see, none of those actually require the acceptance of germ theory. So what do universities gain by accepting germ theory? Not much.As far as trusting pharmacies, I didn't actually use pharmacies. But trusting people in the medical field is the only way to get verifiable evidence. To quote a great movie:"I can see a t-bone by sticking my head up a bull's [butt], or I can just take the butcher's word for it."The quote is only meant to prove that there are experts in a field who have done the studies so that we don't have to be an expert in everything. Being knowledgeable is good, but unless all of the voters would like to take a field trip to a hospital, inject someone with a disease and see if it causes any negative effects, we have to take the doctor's word for it.Besides, the explanation makes sense, and my opponent hasn't logically shown why the explanation doesn't make sense. Therefore, the epxlanation stands.R4) I'm not sure why my opponent brought up cancer again. I already explained why cancer is irrelevant.Cancer is not caused by a pathogen. So germ theory is irrelevant here. The only thing that my opponent says that's relevant is that the more dangerous a disease is, the more costly it is to fix it.However, he doesn't provide how much it costs to produce medicine for pathogen caused diseases as opposed to how much is charged. The entire argument is irrelevant based on that.Note - I should warn my opponent against using 100 page long evidence without providing a reference for where someone will find the actual evidence being cited. Not everyone knows how to use the ctrl+f function, and that was a book written as one web page.Summary:My opponent has not actually proven anything. Almost all of his responses to my evidence are logical fallacy, and the others just aren't grounded in anything. My case remains relatively untouched, but I have made an effort to provide very thorough explanations about how he is wrong.Thank you for reading this debate.