Christians oppressed in the US

My opponent has failed to understand the resolution. If the resolution specifically stated that "The majority of Christians in the US, during the present time period, are oppressed", THEN her arguments would be valid. Fortunately this resolution is extremely broad, and as such, a wide variety of arguments can be made. Based on this resolution, the burden of proof falls upon the Pro (me). That means that I must prove the resolution true, and my opponent must disprove me. As I have brought up twice before, the way in which the resolution is phrased allows for the Pro to win if they can prove ANY instance in which Christians were/are oppressed. Because of this the only way that my opponent can win is to either disprove, discredit, or otherwise find a way to show that ALL of my instances of Christian oppression are false. My opponent has completely failed to make any attack of the kind and as such, the pro MUST win this debate. I will answer the question that my opponent brought up, "How can the majority of a country be oppressed" in two different ways. First, I will directly answer the question. There have been numerous cases in the past in which the minority oppressed the majority. Think dark ages, when kings (who were a minority) ruled over peasants (the majority). Since my opponent also seems to think that the past is irrelevant, here is a modern day example: North Korea. The present dictator rules over the working class, which far outnumber the single ruler. I think that my opponent would agree with me when I say that the working class in North Korea is oppressed. Now for my second response: this question is irrelevant. As I have been explaining throughout my arguments, the resolution does not require majority oppression for the pro to win; only any example of Christian oppression. The primary attack that my opponent made against my case is that Christians oppress others. I am not going to debate as to whether this evidence is an accurate interpretation of the facts. This is because all of the evidence she brought up doesn't matter. Now, as calloused as that may seem, it's true. If we were debating as to whether Christians oppress others, then her evidence would actually be applicable. Unfortunately, we are debating as to whether there are cases of Christian oppression, not if they oppress others. Read the resolution carefully. "Christians oppressed in the US" I think that we can all assume that it basically means "Are Christians oppressed in the US". Notice that the resolution does not specify a time period, or whether we are weighing the acts of non-Christian violence against the acts of pro-Christian violence. The resolution is only asking if there are ever acts of Christian oppression. Because of this, it doesn't matter how many times the Christians caused harms. The way the resolution is designed means that we are ONLY looking at whether there is, or is not Christian oppression. Which I have empirically proved in my past arguments. To reiterate the past arguments: there were a number of cases of Christian oppression. I only cited two, but if you look at the article, there are much more. These two instances were when a mob burned down a Catholic building due to anti-Catholic feelings at the time, the other was the persecution that the Mormons suffered (frequent tar-and-featherings, destruction of property, and murders of Mormons). If this isn't enough, in my first argument I brought up the fact that the United States AT THE PRESENT TIME has a measurement of social hostility against Christians, thus oppression. The main issue that has been brought up throughout this round has been the interpretation of the resolution. My opponent has not offered any actual reasons for her interpretation for the resolution; instead she only stated that the resolution refers to present day (which it doesn't, for reasons that I have gone over several times in my argumentation). For unexplained reasons my opponent also assumed that the resolution is "on balance" which it clearly does not state. "On balance" means that we have to take into consideration all factors, in order to determine whether the resolution is upheld. If this resolution was "on balance" THEN it would matter if she had more evidence than I did. The resolution does NOT state that "On balance, Christians are oppressed in the US". It only asks if they are (or have been) oppressed. Again, the burden of proof falls on the pro, and I have upheld the resolution. The only way in which my opponent could have won, is if she had attacked my actual evidence of Christian oppression. She completely failed to do so, and for these reasons I urge you to vote in favor of the Pro. Thank you.