My opponent will not be able to win this debate

R1.R3. Beginner's LuckAs I explained in my 2nd round rebuttal, Beginner's Luck is a not luck. It can be explained by that it is the convergence of 2 statistical problems. The Likely hood of my opponent getting 10 wins in a row is lower then the likely hood of me winning 5 out of 10 debates. 10 being the last nine debates and this one, either of us has done. No Luck involved just the way the statistical world works.R2.R3 Confirming facts to R1My opponent jumps to "brevity" in round 3. So he must agree with my rebuttal in round 2 of the points he presented in his point 2. That being that the evidence he provided only further established the conditions of the statistical argument put forth in Point 1.R3.R3 "I am Stronger"My opponent asserts that he is on the border between confidence and over-confidence. This is a "Pride cometh before the Fall" argument. Notice he never uses those words. He uses, "...and he more than likely thinks he can rebut my arguments within this round". Of Course I am confident of this. If I could not be confident of my ability to give a good debate than I really should not debate. This is like saying you can not be a loser if you never play the sport. This is true. A better way to say it is "No Risk No Reward". Showing the correct end states as they relate to playing the game. I am confident because as a competitor I have to think and act as if the win is possible. To not do so would be counter to my objective. I can not assume I will lose, win I am striving for a win. My opponent has just confirmed my level of confidence to be the norm for a proper competitor. But his actions in starting this debate shows he has more confidence than the norm. There by his own logic is over confident.R4.R3 Conduct is to be seenMy opponent points out a spelling mistake. In round 3 his point 3, "First, off, elude is used wrongly. It means "toavoidorescape", as shown in http://dictionary.reference.com....... I'm pretty sure you meant allude. This shows your grammar misuse, and I have done nothing wrong grammatically, so I cannot use in S & G" I think my opponent meant to use lose. Certainly S & G is a bit closer than my opponent would have the reader believe.More to the point my opponent offers no arguments to conduct. Or refutes that my rebuttal was on conduct is to be seen. My opponent further goes off point with a "baby puppy" What is a baby puppy? A puppy is a baby dog so a "baby puppy" is a baby baby dog! That makes no sense. Though cute if my opponent wanted to combine baby and puppy it would be this...which is much cuter than one puppy. R5.R3 Better sourcesMy opponent calls 2 of my sources useless because they are on statistical probabilities. He is asking the reader to disregard the evidence I presented, not on the fallacy or lack of reasoning they may contain, but on his opinion. I ask the readers to check out the sources and make their own call on how relevant they are to this debate .R6.R3 Haven't even loss...I urge the readers to check out the kind of debates that Teemo has won. Regardless if my opponent has defeated Teemo, it has no bearing on this debater and debate.R7.R3So do I, we agree on this point.R8.R8 Fact AttackWell let's talk about the facts. I am Con to the resolution, "My opponent will not be able to win this debate". Another way of saying this is "I am able to win this debate." My opponent has been arguing that he has a better chance to win. Yet he never defines "able". Able is the opportunity to do something.[1] If I obey the rules I agreed upon then I certainly have the opportunity to win. This goes to directly confirm my position on the resolution.[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...