Infinite Dimensions and a Dimensional Mind

It is unfortunate in this final round that the opponent has become disrespectful and negligent in addressing my arguments. Not only does he claim that I am "unintelligent", but he says I am trying to win this debate "cheaply".I understand that his position is difficult to defend, but that does not give him special priveleges. Argumentation theory demands a burden of proof, it demands clash and it demands clarity. As for the opponent's claim that I admitted to "not understanding" his argument -- I made that statement based upon the "sound" argument, which was a misinterpretation on my part regarding a single sentence in the opponent's opening argument. The opponent is likely most frustrated that I have refused to agree to the "what if" style of debate he is trying to engage in. "What if" conversations definitely have their place in intellectual discourse, but this is not the place. "What ifs" are more suited to casual conversations around a fire than on this debate forum, where rigor is valued. I'll hit all arguments in the following section. I'll bring all arguments on a particular section under its own heading, for clarity. LightThe opponent largely ignores my argument on this issue claiming that my "inability to understand is not an argument". Again, I'd like to clarify that I have understood the opponent's argument. Refer to my Round 2 analysis on the "green cube" and the discussion regarding "physical properties" versus "spatial dimensions". I demonstrated that 3 dimensional theory adequately explains the phenomenon of light.I further described that "color", both the physical and neurological definition, both require only 3 dimensions to be understood. This is especially interesting to not for the "neurological" defition, as it shows that things that occur in our mind is limited to three dimensions since our mind itself is physically bound to those three dimensions. "Dimensional Theory"The opponent claimed that he disliked my "traditional" definition of "dimensions", so I asked that he present a definition or set of definitions in its place. Rather than do so, the opponent says "Dimensional thoery is not the name of my theory but theories on dimensions." As is obvious, this is not a definition of any kind. These "theories on dimensions" are not qualified, evidenced or explained. As such, my definition stands, since it is the only definition anyone bothered producing. DreamsThe opponent seemed to miss my point, thinking I was being rude. This regarded the phenomenon of dreams and whether they indicate the "potential of the mind", which further implies higher dimensions. I stated that it is perfectly accurate to say this may be the case, just as it is perfectly accurate to say most anything may be the case. I used the unicorn example to demonstrate that may be's alone have no place in debate if they cannot be in some way reasonably supported. I've pointed out that the occurence of dreams does not imply a 5th dimension, much less an infinite amount of them. Without some semblance of proof or logic, the claim does not hold. Hard ProblemsI agreed with the opponent in that many of the ideas he's expressing are "hard problems" in that their difficult to prove and/or that we're unable to prove them now. However, he seems to hold the assumption that this somehow relieves him of his duty to prove what he's saying. This is not so.The burden of proof is an extremely important concept; without it there would be no way to judge whether some debater A did his due diligence in the debate. The opponent's repugnance toward the concept is completely irrelevant as to whether it should be implemented. I occasionally have debates where my position is untenable and I would just as much like there to be no burden of proof. However, I had to deal with it, just as the opponent does -- as argumentation does not work properly without it. ConclusionIn this round the opponent became hostile and dropped many of my arguments. I have demonstrated that he lacks adequate proof of his claims and he has agreed with me in this matter. The opponent's idea is certainly something I wouldn't mind talking about at the bar with a few beers, but here it holds no real value since it cannot be backed up. Note that I am not pushing evidence as "absolute proof" here. Literally any type of reasonable evidence would suffice, such as logic, expert opinion, etc. The opponent offered none of these, deciding instead to argue an opinion and "cool idea".It is for this reasons that I have taken this debate. I'd like to thank Pro for sticking it out and the voters for reading. Have a nice day!