People can be proven wrong.

I. Hypothetical ScenarioCon refuses to provide a rebuttal against the scenario itself. Instead, he focuses on one sentence of this argument where I state: "In this scenario, they met the BOP when they showed the tape as evidence in court."Con replies to the video evidence charge by saying the following: As I've pointed out to you over & over again, BOP is on the Prosecution in the so-called "criminal justice system". The prosecution CAN'T meet the BOP by showing a movie. It just doesn't work like that. Period. The prosecution isn't showing a movie though, they are showing video-tape surveillance of the man, who was charged with robbery, committing the crime. To correct my opponents misunderstanding regarding videos proving someone's guilt - here is an article of a man charged with 3 counts of murder after his video was submitted as evidence during his trial: http://www.nme.com...As you can see Con, video evidence most certainly upholds the prosecutions BOP. II. Hypothetical Scenario TwoCon never provided a rebuttal for this in his last round, so I therefore extend this argument. III. Four other, real-world examples.Con never provided a rebuttal for this in his last round, so I therefore extend this argument. IV. Irrelevant argumentsCon still hasn't provided any reason for these arguments to be considered relevant. I therefore extend this as well. V. L. Ron HubbardCon states: I NEVER threatened to charge you with kidnapping, &, as I wrote before, how could a RELIGION kidnap anybody? I never said that you threatened to charge me with kidnapping. You threatened to sue me for defamation after I told you about scientologists kidnapping people against their will. Also, it wasn't the religion that kidnapped the people, only the followers of the religion did that. To be even more clear, it was not Scientology which kidnapped people, but scientologists. VI. PurityAgain, no rebuttal was presented for this line of argumentation by Con. Thus, I extend this. VII. Absence of EvidenceCon apparently drops this argument as well since there is no rebuttal provided for it. VIII. Additional comments made by Con Con states: You DID call me an autistic child. You DID call me a cowardly troll. You're a Lying, Crazy, Piece of sh*t. There is no way that you can win. My opponent is incorrect. What I actually said was: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 @ 12:28:19 PM Posted by: Blade-of-Truth Are you autistic or something? Can you confirm that you are for me? **Regarding the cowardly troll thing, what I actually said was: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 @ 6:12:35 PM Posted by: Blade-of-Truth Enough talk, put your money where your mouth is and accept my debate challenge. If you don't accept it, then I hope you are content being a cowardly troll, because that's what I'd consider you if you don't. ****As everyone can see, I didn't "call" him these things like he claims. I believe at this point I am arguing against someone who has abandoned all reasoning and logic. This is evident with his following statement:You're a Lying, Crazy, Piece of sh*t. Con now relies on Ad-Hom attacks, which is a logical fallacy and extremely poor conduct for any debate setting. I would ask the audience/judges to please consider his incredibly rude comments to me when determining who had the better conduct. In closing, Con has dropped a majority of my arguments. I've extended each of those arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged. I've additionally provided rebuttals in a respectable manner where they are needed, unlike my opponent who relies on the "not ugh" tactics and offensive name-calling. I would ask Pro to merely concede the debate if he wishes to continue acting in this manner, as it is offensive and borderline trollish. At-least, I hope it is trolling. If it isn't, then it's even more offensive. I now return the floor to Con for the final round. Thank you.