My opponent will not say Hello to me.

Preponderance of Evidence, Pt 2 of 2:1. "If CON is not able to provide enough evidence to fulfill his BOP next turn (And I am sure he won't), I urge everyone to vote Pro."This is the argument shouted from a sinking ship. "Help me! I waited till the last minute to get up & go look for a life jacket--found none--but hope you will come and rescue me my belated attempt to get off this sinking vessel" But I'll endulge since I still have the superior use of logic on my side.2. "Say Hello: Say or shout "hello"; greet someone:"The audio track bears the vocal words "hello"--burden fulfilled. You attempt to point out "greet someone". Hello is a word designated as a greeting, common sense & our ow personal histories testify to this, since we do not use "hello" as a spoken or written farewell. "Someone"--there is no standard articulated that the someone had to be real or imagine. Therefore the distinction on this word can be construed to fit each person's argument. However, simple logic roundkicks that in the face, because playing stupid intellectual mind games to try to steer "someone" apart from being "Pro" will only make "Con" look like an imbecile. It is evident, based on Pro's intent to initiate THIS DEBATE, that "someone" is indeed specifically "Pro" also named "Evann." So the personalized greeting of "Hello, Evannn" in the voice recording was specifically directed to Pro also named Evannn. 3."Because there is the possibilty that I never actually clicked on the audio clip and listened to it"I quote Pro from R2: "I would like to point out that you cannot prove that it was actually YOU, my opponent, ShadowKingStudios, speaking to me when I listened to that recording." You have contradicted yourself while lying to potential voters. Your new rhetoric implodes upon itself when your old claim is the bomb that you had unknowingly preset to detonate it. When a proposition is set upon a weak foundation the premise will crumble against basic logic. 4. "The opponent must still prove that the words "My Opponent" in the resolution were referring to him"Actually I do have to "still prove" it. You validated me as your "opponent" the moment you failed to A.) notify DDO mods that the "wrong person" accepted your challlenge; B.) when you set the debate invitation to "Open" which means ANY DDO member can be the "my opponent"; & C.) when you acknowledged me twice as worthy: "Thank you Shadow King Studios for accepting my debate" and "I would like to point out that you...YOU, my opponent, ShadowKingStudios...".5. "Perhaps I was not stating..." "Perhaps I was not stating..."Perhaps I'm a 500lbs elf from the Doegh' nhut Eton district of Rivendell. Perhaps I'm not black but a racist white redneck that loves watching Honey Boo Boo. Perhaps I'm actually a second account created by Mikal to use my alter Negro ego to argue with my other Caucasoid personality for absolutely no value but shock. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Sir, perhaps, fail in intellectual arguments because they do not establish a reasonable intention for validation.6. "If CON is not able to provide enough evidence to fulfill his BOP next turn "Again, my BoP was fulfilled in R1 & elaborated on in R2 & finally proved sufficient in R3. Thank you.