Science provides indisputable proof that God formed all Life on Earth, failing to prove otherwise

It is unfortunate that Pro found himself unwiling to continue debating. Closing StatementsThe argument points should clearly go to me, as Pro dropped his argument in this most recent round and further expressed his unwillingness to continue debating. The spelling and grammar points should likely remain "tied". I didn't notice any major mistakes by any side that affected the debate in a negative way, in terms of spelling and grammar. The conduct point should go to me. I have not broken any of the opponent's rules. I will reiterate them here, for the convenience of the voters. 1. No "reports" as evidence unless accompanied by photographic/videographic evidence that shows the process of [living creatures] culminating into living beings. [I did not provide any reports whatsoever, so I have no violated this rule. ]2. Opinions without submission of proofs defined by debate standard are disallowed. Do not refer to or point out reports which have not met these standards. [Again, I did not provide any reports. I furthermore did not state any opinions that were not backed by logic. As the opponent led with a logical argument in his opening speech, it was assumable to me that logic was a valid form of support. Furthermore, it is literally impossible to communicate without using logic (valid or invalid). ]3. Evidence must be videographic or photographic. [I did not provide any evidence or reference any evidence, so this rule is not broken. ]4. Microscopic organisms may only be used if. .. [I did not provide any evidence or reference any evidence, so this rule is not broken. ]5. No off topic subjects admitted. [All things mentioned by me were relevant to the debate, in my opinion. It is ultimately left to the voters to determine whether my arguments were "on topic" and relevant to the debate. ]6. Photographic and videographic evidence confirm the existence of God and he can be discussed freely at any time. [I did not even question this assumption. I accepted that we are to assume God exists. I did, however, question the lack of photographic and videographic evidence of him creating life -- which concerns the resolution. ]We can see that I did not break any rules presented by the opponent. His unwillingness to debate this issue further is no doubt because I expressed my negating position in a way that he did not expect. While this is unfortunate for him, it is not a violation of the rules set forth by FoC. A New ArgumentAs I previously mentioned, the moment I accepted this debate it became as much "my debate" as it is "his debate". I expect high quality argumentation in my debates and though I cannot force the opponent to continue debating, I can continue to provide constructive analysis on my own. I refuse to simply "stop debating" in Round 3 or a five round debate. In this following argument, I will be presenting a Kritik. A Kritik is an argument that concerns the way the opponent is attempting to meet his resolutional burden and/or one that concerns any fundementally "bad" assumptions made. The KritikI will be presenting a case arguing that the opponent's fundemental assumptions are detrimental to the debate process and do not result in any of the positive outcomes argumentation is supposed to produce. Point 1: Overly restrictive rules and regulations. Man is fairly bad at moderating himself in many cases. This is especially prevalent in "competitive play", where two or more opposing sides are vieing for a victory that cannot be mutually obtained. As such, there are rules and regulations that are set into place. These rules are meant to foster fairness and sportsmanlike conduct, while preserving the integrity and purpose of the activity at hand. Rules begin to damage the activity in question whenever they are so restrictive that they no longer promote fairness and integrity. In instances where this occurs, it is necessary to acknowledge and correct the draconian regulations so that the activity retains the value it had prior to these increased restrictions. It is my contention that the opponent has presented as requirements these "toxic regulations" to the degree that it negatively impacted the quality and educational usefulness of this debate in a significant way. If we, as a community of debaters, wish to continue to value quality and educational debates, it is our obligation to acknowledge and address these negative restrictions introduced by FoC. As any voter can see, the way in which FoC limited Con's abiity to present information made it nearly impossible to provide adequate clash. I only managed to do it by taking a negative position that the opponent is not familiar with. Restrictions like these only promote hostility and negativity, which can be clearly illustrated by the frustration present in the comment section of this very debate. I urge voters to recognize and correct this degradation of quality argumentation by insuring the offender loses this debate. While that may not change his attitude, it may change his future behavior and the behavior of others who read this debate. Voters shoud exercise their power to the fullest extent to insure that violations like this do not become commonplace on Debate. org. The opponent's unwillingness to debate. The opponent is doing what I call "throwing a fit" because the debate veered in a direction that he had not prepared for. This is sad for him, but it is a reflection of real life. Often times we believe that we fundementally understand a situation and are fully prepared for it, only to have something unexpected happen anyway. When faced with unexpected adversity, we must remember to carry on. The human race would not be were it is now if we encouraged simply lying down in the mud when difficult situations arose. It behooves us, as a species, to value attempts to overcome adversity and difficulty. Likewise, it is beneficial to us to attempt to reprimand those who choose to simply "give up". Again, in this situation, the voters likely do not have the power to change the attitude of my opponent. They do, however, have the ability to demonstrate with their vote that giving up (in this debate or in life) is an unnacceptable behavior. Rewarding obstinance is no different than encouraging it. Kritik ConclusionThe way in which the opponent set up the round and the way in which he is behaving now are both detrimental to the debate community. It is the duty of the voters to insure that negative behavior like this is not rewarded. Instead, we must hedge against it using all of the authority we have, which in this case is something as simple as a vote. Voting for the opponent is condoning poor argumentation and negative behaviors. Voting for me is the natural way of attempting to correct the apparent error in FoC's ways. ConclusionThe opponent has simply given up, which is tantamount to forfeit. Beyond that, I've demonstrated that (up until I presented my Kritik) I did not violate any of the rules provided. In this alone, I have won. I've additionally demonstrated that the opponent's attitude is itself a cancerous force that, if encouraged, will only have negative consequences in this community. Whichever way you look at it, I have clearly won this debate. I hope the readers got something out of this (maybe they learned what contrapositives are? ) and I hope the voters band together to teach FoC that this thing that happened above is not acceptable in this community and is not acceptable in general.