My opponent will win this debate!

Ok Con, thanks for your response but to begin with:'First of all, I would like to point out that when PRO set up this argument, he could not have known that I was going to accept it. Anyone could have accepted it, therefore, his initial claim that, "My opponent will win this debate! " [1] is a claim he could not have known. ' Yes thanks Con. Con has pointed out that my positive claim was flawed. This is just another reason as to why my opponent has won this debate due to my inaccuracies in my statements and a lack of burden of proof in my initial tital for the debate. Con stated that because his win ratio is higher than mine, it doesn't gaurantee a success. I did not say this was the primary reason but it contributes overall as to why he has a better chance. My opponent responded to my point about his country, America. He basicly said that I guess its not as great as we (the rest of the world) see it 'the land of freedom'. While he's right in saying that yes it is not perfect in every way, I would like to remind the audience of Plato's theory on how the world is imperfect. Although religious people may believe otherwise (i. e. god is perfect BS) no offence its only a theory everyone. Okay and some parts may not be great (guns problems) but there are parts of the US which are safe and overall the country is good in my opinion and I wish I lived in California somewhere and not here in London (a sh*t place with the worst prime minister and national debt than any other country). The US isn't that bad you can always get rid of Obama after 4 years if you don't want him. Here the majority of decisions made are those in control who are actually seniors which is complete utter bullsh*t that's why marijuana is illegal in our country, England. I quote from Con, 'PRO also said some very nice things about me in his arguments, of which I am very appreciative, but those points to not a successful debate make. ' Well this is your opinion as it stands either my argument on this behalf was a reasonable contribution or totally relevant means either I persuade the audience to like you or that I've wasted time and made a weakarguement both or which possibilities result in supporting your victory so I don't mind. Afterall I did say you would win at the start. 'PRO, on the other hand, is far superior to me. First of all, his profile is nearly blank' - this does not make me in any way superior or infact less superior than one who does. 'Also, he spells "honor," "honour. " How cool is that? ! That alone should be reason enough for anyone to vote for PRO in this debate. ' - while we all fail to see what's cool about me spelling honour the way it is in my language in my country, it also could not be enough reason at all for me to win the debate after all you deserve it. Con is modest and trying to defend this by explaining why it's not that so. He can't find any REAL valid reasons as to why I should win whereas we can see why he does so Con is going to win the debate for obvious reasons. Con is older than me (with age comes wisdom) and also he has learnt alot more than I in those extra years because he's had more education and life experience. Con, a 34 year old is much more likely to be more knowledgable than myself (14 year old). Con uses number references in his argument. This is far more organised and professional than any of my writing.