Pro should have won the following debate

I didn't expect this debate to go so long so I don't know if I'll have a chance to finish before I get too busy. Next, is the 2nd last argument, entitled revelation at Sinai: I will past this part of the argument here: Pro: R2: "Evidence of "revelation at Sinai" is as following: hundreds of thousands observed it and communicated it to others. Through communication the story does not die with the death of the generation that observed it, rather it is trans generational it remains being passed down generation to generation by millions of people from millions of people to millions of people in a continuous chain for over 2000 years. The message has been that your ancestors experienced along with hundreds of thousands of other people the revelation of god, and the giving of the bible. (The Jews are not the only one with the tradition of the revelation, the Muslims and Christians have accepted the revelation at Sinai. So they have also been passing it down, making it billions.)." con R2: "My opponent's last piece of "evidence" is that a lot of people believe something is true. I will ask my opponent not to commit the fallacy of the argument from popularity and actually bring real evidence of his religion to this debate." Pro R3 : "I am afraid I have been misunderstood I am not stupid enough to use numbers as evidence if that were so Christianity and Islam would be much stronger than Judaism. The evidence is experiential the message being passed from, by, and to millions is not one of belief rather one of experience. I hope I have sufficiently clarified this point. I can elaborate in the next round if necessary." Con R3: "This is no different from claiming that a lot of people are Jews. All you are saying is that a lot of people believe that Judaism is the one true religion. Now on to my opponent's alleged examples of miracles performed by god." Pro R4 : Many beliefs are based on a few people making a claim and people believing them and more people believing them and so on and so forth. (This may or may not be valid evidence; it is irrelevant to this debate.) In contrast Revelation at Sinai was experienced by hundreds of thousands (perhaps even over one million) of people who told their children who told their children and so on and so forth. What was transmitted was not just belief of a few people's claims. Rather it was a mass testimony of over 600,000 people experiencing an event. Those hundreds of thousands of witnesses testified on a yearly basis what they experienced to their hundreds of thousands of children. What is being transmitted is not just a belief based on a claim by some people. But a national experience of god by hundreds of thousands of witness ancestors, those hundreds of thousands of witnesses themselves gave over testimony of the event that they themselves experienced. They didn't simply believe it, the 1st generation experienced it. The next generation heard from those 600,000 witnesses who were their parents, ect. This testimony is based on a solid foundation. I apologize for repetition and length it is difficult for me to pinpoint exactly what is bothering my opponent. Number of believers alone is not enough; a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If a belief was started by a claim by a few witnesses that is how strong the claim is no matter how many people believe them. A national experience is not based on a claim by a few people; it is a testimony of a nation experience. I hope I have made myself clear, feedback is appreciated. To summarize the main difference of revelation at Sinai is at its base and beginning. Its base is over 600,000 witnesses, its transmission has been from those 600,000 witnesses to their children in the form of a yearly testimony, and the testimony has been passed down in that way ever since. Con R4: "After this my opponent moves on to his main argument, national revelation. My opponent brings no real argument but just makes a very weak argument from popularity. He tries to claim that it is not but this is my opponent's argument. "Judaism has been passed down for generations and generations and has gone from just a few people to millions." This same argument can of course be made for any religion such as Christianity or Islam or any ideology really like libertarianism or liberalism. This is not new evidence to my opponent's case." Pro R5: "Going now to the topic of national revelation: 1st my opponent miss quotes me showing that I was not at all understood he quotes me as such ""Judaism has been passed down for generations and generations and has gone from just a few people to millions."" No. No. and No again I tried drilling this point in last round. It was not "few" people it started with hundreds of thousands (if not over 1,000,000) of witnesses this is what makes Judaism diff. from all other beliefs, all other beliefs fit my opponents quote. My point is that this national revelation was witnessed by hundreds of thousands which is what gives it its credibility this is a main point I've been making." Con clearly did not read pros argument properly, as evidenced by his complete misrepresentation of it in the form misquoting pro in R4. Con keeps making the same point over and over ignoring pros attempts to correct his misunderstanding.