I Believe that Anything, "Alive", Has "Mind" = "A Mind" or an Equivalent.

Okay, so it looks like my opponent's last round essentially come down to him only a) restating his origional point, which I refuted last round with my three points, and b) talked about how zombies prove his case. I'll go through each point and explain how he is wrong and I am still clearly winning.A: Restating his caseMy opponent's first, third, and fourth paragraph all amount to him simply restating his previous position, which my first, second, and third points refute. My opponent adresses the third one, the one about the zombies, but concedes the first two. In so far that he did that, his case is still refuted going into the third (and final) round. So let's go through the two arguments that he conceded and explain why they refute his position and cause the voters to vote con.1. SemanticsSince my opponent conceded this argument, he concedes that a mind will be defined as a brain as normally possessed by humans and animals and not by plants. This negates his position because, as we will look to his example of a 'buttercup', the buttercup is alive, but does not have a mind. But how is this true, under my opponent's case? If the plant doesn't have a mind, how can it be alive? The question to that is it couldn't be alive. But since it is alive, we can verify that a mind does not always entail having life, thus causing the voters to vote con. 2. SolipsismSince my opponent concedes solipsism, we must look at the resolution from a solisptemic point of view. If solipsism is true (and for the purpose of this round it is, since he conceded it), then nothing outside of my mind exists. Thusly, my opponent's mind cannot exist. Yet he still lives. So how can he be living if his mind doesn't exist?To avoid confusion, I'd like to clarify on what this implicates. To do this, I will provide a few figurative examples. For example, we can all say that George Washington, Commander of the first Continental Army and first president of the United States of America, is dead. There's no questioning this fact, unless you want to pull something like what thett and FREEDO did here: http://www.debate.org...But we also know that George Washington DID exist. Non-life does not automatically entail non-existence. In the same way, non-existence doesn't automatically entail non-life. So even if my opponent's mind doesn't exist, he can still be living. So, as explained three paragraphs above, solipsism is the second nail in the coffin for my opponent's case. He also responded to my third point, but I'll show you why his argument is insufficient to prove his side. B: Zombies!!!!!!My opponent is right about one thing he said, at least to a certain extent. Zombies WOULD be a wonderful point for my opponents case....if they were alive. Remember, I defined to be alive as to be able to perform the necessary bodily functions in order to maintain life. He conceded this definiton, so it's going to be the truth in this round. Since he conceded this, we can reasonably conclude that zombies do not live. They do not need oxygen to live. They do not need a pulse (i.e. a heartbeat) to live. They do not need food or water to live. Thus, they are not alive. But they have a mind! So doesn't that prove that they're alive? Nope, it doesn't. They're still not performing the necessary bodily functions needed to maintain life, so they cannot be living. This contradicts with my opponent's case of "If you have a mind, you have to be living!" But even if you still think that my opponent's arguments against my third point are good and sound logic, let me point out that it's only one point in my case of three seperate and independently sufficient points, meaning I only have to win one of my points to sufficiently disprove the pro's case and the resolution, thus meriting a con ballot. Since my opponent conceded two of my three points, I have two seperate and independently sufficient points as to why the resolution is false and why my opponent's case is wrong. That's enough to merit a con vote. So even if you don't buy the zombies argument, I still have two other arguments that my opponent conceded as to why I'm still right and he's still wrong.