It's okay for men to cheat but not women

My apologies for misunderstanding the purpose of this debate.I read through my opponent's constructive in the last debate he did like this, and I thought, "There's no way that he's actually that sexist. It's gotta be a joke. Especially with all those nasty words he's using."However, apparently this is a genuine belief of my opponent. For that, I also am sorry.To be clear about this debate, my opponent never discussed BOP (burden of proof) which means we're using standard BOP. My opponent's burden is to prove why his side is correct. Because he is attempting to prove that something is true despite its conradiction to culturally accepted ethical norms. My job is simpyl to cast enough doubt on his side to make you believe it is not correct. Of course, I presented a counter statement, but my job as con isn't necessarily to prove that counter statement. My job is just to put significant enough doubt in your mind that you believe that pro is probably wrong.In other words: pro must provide proof that he's right.If you read through is case, he says a lot of things. He makes a lot of claims. He says a lot of things are true universally, as if there are no exceptions to said claims. However, none of it is upheld. I can just as easily say that I am Morgan Freeman (which would be blasphemnous; I'm a mere prophet), but that doesn't make it true. I would have to send some form of proof for you to accept that as true. Otherwise you're just like, "oh yeah, there goes that internet troll, Jonelle, again." However, my opponent doesn't prove any of this.And even if he proved any of his statements, it still wouldn't uphold his case for the following reason:This here is the important part. Read the part after this big text for your voting material.My opponent's goal is to prove the statement: "It is okay for men to cheat but not women."For something to be okay, it must at least be morally acceptable behavior. This means it's not necessarily a good thing, but it's not wrong either. It's not a mistake.However, my opponent clearly makes the statement: cheating is a mistake.So if cheating is a mistake, then why is it okay? Or are mistakes morally acceptable? My opponent hasn't made this clear, and since he ignored this in the last round it's a dropped point. He can't bring up any new points according to his own rules.He also cannot bring in any new evidence to support his side.I can basically end the debate right here with a summary of why my opponent loses:1) He did not uphold the burden of proof. He didn't prove a single statement he made. To say something is not to prove it. Not even his reasoning is sound enough to be proof. His entire case hinges on a conglomerate of unproven statements.2) He clearly say that cheating is a mistake. He never explained why it is still okay even though it's a mistake. He didn't define okay or mistake, so we must operate under the normal definitions of each one of those words. In this case, we find them to be contradictory.3) He may not present any new arguments or new sources in the last round according to his own rules. For my last round, I will most likely just copy and past this and expand a little bit on each point. But essentially, his entire case is unproven and cannot be deemed true.Basically: thank you for reading. Have a nice day.Oh and this whole debate just proves that thing I quoted from the Mary Poppin's video. Just saying.