Is the Qu'ran scientifically proven

Once again, my opponent tries to justify the fact that his own admission that he himself failed the challenge is not proof that the qur'an is the true word of Allah(God), despite his own admission that he has failed the challenge. Again, these are the words of my opponent:"Indeed, I myself fail the challenge".Thus we see above that my opponent himself is further evidence to the fact that the challenge scientifically proves that it is the true word of Allah(God), since he himself failed the challenge. Again, the challenge is for YOU YOURSELF to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, or even just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literatue that goes against the wants of a mass of people, as proof that such an act is humanly possible. My opponent admittedly states, as shown from his own words above, that he himself has FAILED THE CHALLENGE. So the debate is basically over. For my opponent is an eye and ear witness himself that inspiring enough followers to conquer a nation, or just the street you live on, by using human-made speech/literature that goes against what the people want is humanly impossible. Therefore, this proves that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah. Why? The reason is because Muhammad used the Qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation in the same fashion. So if it is humanly impossible to use human-made speech or literature that goes against the likes of the masses to inspire them to follow a person/s and conquer a nation, yet Muhammad used the Qur'an to do just that, then what does that mean? That means that the Qur'an that Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah. The debate is over. Finished. Yet my opponent is willing to spend the next several rounds with hearsay arguments that the challenge is invalid and not impossible, despite admitting that he himself failed the impossible challenge!Dear audience, what we are witnessing is clearly desperation from my opponent, with hopes to win a debate that he admittedly lost. In his attempt to do so, he presents the following strawman rebuttal:"My opponent would have you doubt that Barack Obama was elected president. He would also have you doubt that the Children's Crusade happened."This is an utter failure and a weak strawman to draw attention from the fact that my opponent admittedly acknowledges that he failed the challenge. For at no time have I ever stated tht Barack Obama was never President, supported by my opponent's inability to quote and prove otherwise. My opponent is desperately trying to show us that Barack Obama's election to office is proof that the challenge is invalid. If such is the case, then my opponent wants us to believe that:"Obama became President after a bunch of his own followers conquered the US for him after being inspired by his speech that went against their own likes".What? This is clearly flawed logic. For Obama does not have any followers, nor did he conquer the US., nor was he elected to office by people who were inspired by things in his speech that they DID NOT LIKE. This is clearly deluded logic and that history itself proves so. And after repeated attempts to present such a flawed argument as proof, my opponent has still failed to show that Obama has followers, that they conquered the US for him, or that their reasoning for doing so was after being inspired by words of the President that GO AGAINST THEIR LIKING. The Obama example utterly fails, thus proving nothing. Obama became President after being elected to office. Since the law of electing a President is not Obama's idea, then his becoming President is not the result of his followers supporting his human-made speech/literature, as the challenge requires. Furthermore, the law itself came into existence after the public democratically agreed to it, which is a concept that they believed on their own. Therefore, the public and voters of a president are not followers of the president since the law to elect a president was not the president's idea. It's a public idea. So the public is following their own law, not the president's law.The same applies for the example of the Children's crusade. This example uterly fails from the start, based on the simple fact that once again, Stephen Cloyes was never the leader of any nation, despite having many followers, nor were they following him because they were inspired by his words that went against their liking.So the examples fails, while my opponent's own admission that he himself failed the challenge further supports the fact that Obama or the Children's Crusade is not proof that the challenge is invalid, because the examples are hearsay, while his own admission to failure comes from a hands-on eyewitness account. A hands-on eyewitness account is more credible than hearsay. So my opponent's own failure of the challenge proves that the challenge is humanly impossible, which means that his argument on Obama and the Children's crusade answering the challenge fails since he himself became an eyewitness to the fact that the challenge is impossible. Again, his own eyewitness account to failing the challenge as impossible proves that any hearesay that it was answered by Obama and the Children crusades is false, because hearsay is not more credible than a hands-on eyewitness account. Even my opponent himself has yet to deny this, thus further proving that the challenge does scientifically prove that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah(God).But my opponent does not finish there. He still wishes to justify his flawed logic and presents the following:"I will not provide any more evidence backing it up, wikipedia is a valid source according to DDO so deal with it"Another failed rebuttal. According to my opponent, the authority of whether something is factual or not is not based on true evidence, but whether DDO says it's o.k. This has to be the most unsound logic presentable. If such is the case, then according to my opponent. if DDO says that 2+2= 5, then it now because credible and right to say so, since DDO says so. Any reasonable person can see the absurdity in such logic. Proof is based on facts, not forum rules from a website owner. My opponent finally concludes his rebuttal by stating:"1) Formulate hypothesis: It is humanly impossible for a person/s to inspire enough people to follow him/her to conquer a nation by using humanmande speech/literature that goes against the likes and beliefs of those people."2) Test hypothesis: It fails on account that by "humanly possible" it means in all of human kind is this possible. I gave to examples, whether you agree with the historical evidence behind my examples is irrelevant, by the rules of DDO they are not only viable but also reliable."Above, we clearly see that my opponet himself says that in order to invalidate the challenge (hypothesis), you must test the challenge(hypothesis). So from the mouth of my opponent himself, the actual attempt of the challenge is the only credible proof. Yet as stated, when my opponent himself attempted the challenge the result from his own mouth is:"Indeed, I myself fail the challenge".So based on my opponent's own logic and words, one's own attempt to answering the challenge themself is the only credible proof, not hearsay and historical references that my opponent himself has desperately tried to use to justify his own failure of the challenge. So according to my opponent's logic, even his own examples of historical references, the children's crusade, and Obama's Presidency is weak evidence, since it is a reference to hearsay and not an actual attempt from one'self to answer the challenge hands-on by doing it yourself and since my opponent admittedly failed the hands-on challenge, then he himself stands as proof that the qur'an challenge scientifically proves that it is the true word of Allah(God).