I did your mom last night, To accept this is to accept full BOP.

Ladies and gentlemen, as it comes time to conclude upon this earth-shattering debate, it simply comes down to who better fulfilled their burden of proof.Some of you may be scratching their heads, especially considering that upon acceptance of the resolution I inherented full burden of proof to prove that my opponent did not go to pound-town with my momma. I knew that fully well, and thus had to come up with a strategy that negated this abusive set-up and returned the ground to an even footing upon which an actual debate could occur. Thus, I presented the strategy I did: I argued the fact that since I was "Gettin' Jiggy With It" with my mum, and I didn't see my opponent, he couldn't have screwed my mom. From the confused rage of my opponent's responses, my strategy seemed to have worked it's desired effect of negating the abuse of this resolution.I realize I had full burden of proof to disprove my opponent's claim. But if I didn't see him while I was doing her, my claim disproves his claim, thus fulfilling the burden of proof. This means that in order for this to actually be a debate, and in order to prevent me from fulfilling my burden of proof, he had to negate the fact that I was doing my own mom. The real question was did he do this?No, he hid behind the fact that "he didn't have to prove anything as I had the full burden of proof".I agree. I did. You had to refute what I said though. That's why they call these things "debates" and not "free win machines". Since he never did refute the claim that I did my mom, we can presume I was going Oedipus on the woman who birthed me. Instead, my opponent wanted to go a route that would claim that he could have done my mom without me knowing, while I was doing her. The following list of things is what he tried to use:- Invisibility- A memory-wiping device/machine- Hallucinogens- Knock-out drugsThe first two do not exist, and my opponent never proved that they existed to use so that he could negate my claim. The second two I negated, and were dropped thusly by my opponent who decided instead to go for the former two strategies. All four, however, were refuted. So there's no reason to believe that he did my mom while I did without me knowing. This means that you can presume if I didn't see or hear him, he wasn't there doing my mom.This just leaves one final avenue of attack for my opponent: was I actually screwing my mom, or someone who looked like my mom. The problem with this is I asked my opponent to prove he made someone look like my mom, whcih would've then stuck me with the burden to prove that the girl I screwed was actually my mom. The problem with that is he never provided any sort of proof that he made someone look like my mom. In fact, he dropped it flat out after the second round and only brought it up again here. Since he failed to substantiate that, we can presume the woman I was was doing was, in fact, my mom.All of the end results added together, we get one end summary: I was doing my mom, all night last night, and I saw not hide nor hair nor heard nothing from my opponent all night. Where does that leave someone in terms of the resolution? Solid negation, as I proved that my opponent clearly didn't do my mom. I had 100% BOP to prove he didn't and he didn't have to prove that he did. I fulfilled my burden. He had the burden to refute my claims, as exist in every side in a debate. He never did. He failed to meet that requirement. Which means you prefer my fulfilled burden.As such, I must urge the voters to vote in negation of the resolution, and vote for the con debater here.Thank you, hope you enjoyed reading this entertaining debate!