There is No good evidence for evolution

Seeing as my opponent seems to either dismiss my evidence and arguments outright or attack straw men instead of my actual arguments, I would have to conclude that I have won the debate. The statement that he is defending is that there is NO good evidence for the five forms of evolution that he listed. In the first instance, that of the big bang, I provided evidence for the expansion of the universe in two cases: the cosmic microwave background and redshift. These points were completely ignored as my opponent proceeded to argue over the semantics of the theory and then rather fallaciously concluded that since the singularity could not be completely explained there was no good evidence for the theory. Seeing as the two pieces of evidence were never addressed, this alone should constitute a concession of the point and, seeing as my opponent is defending the position that there is NO good evidence, award me the debate. But I will continue. In the second instance, that of stellar nucleosynthesis, my opponent also seems to ignore my numerous sources, explanations, and citations and proceeds to conclude that "we don"t know how it did this". I can either conclude that my opponent does not believe that thermonuclear fusion is possible or that he does not understand it, seeing as he never so much as acknowledges any part of my argument. In any case this is also a clear concession of the point in my opinion. In the third instance, that of stellar formation, my citation of articles explaining accretion and photographs of newly formed stars in nebulae have failed to convince my opponent, despite his inability to effectively argue against said evidence. At this point he becomes slightly abusive, calling my argument "just stupid" after making a false equivocation between snow on earth and an interstellar cloud. In addition to my opponent"s inability to debunk the rather copious evidence indicating that it is possible for stars and planets to form via the accretion of gas and dust, which constitutes another concession, I believe that his behavior justifies the allocation of conduct points to me. In the fourth instance, I conceded. In the fifth instance, that of "macro-evolution", also known as speciation, my opponent fails to address the idea of ring species. First he claims that this does not demonstrate speciation ("macro-evolution") because the inability to procreate indicates a loss of genetic information, which indicates a lack of evolution. I provided evidence to the contrary, including the fact that diploid watermelons can reproduce while triploid ones cannot, despite having more genetic information. I then pointed out that the gain or loss of genetic information is irrelevant when it comes to speciation. My opponent then brought up his thoughts on the process by which watermelons are made triploid, which has no bearing on the fact that the existence of triploid sterile watermelons debunks his criticism of ring species as an example of speciation. Due to my opponent"s inability to satisfactorily address any of my offerings of evidence and his rather testy demeanor in the final round, I humbly ask to be named the victor, as my victory under his conditions hinges on producing just one piece of "good evidence" supporting evolution as he defined it in his introduction. Thank you to everyone involved for this opportunity to test my mettle.