pro should have won this debate

In the previous round I made a case that Pro had the most convincing argument based on organization, analysis, and refutation, which is what the question is based on. Throughout this entire debate my opponent has only refuted one part of one of the three questions that make up this question as a whole. Even if I give him that (which I won’t) he still loses the “most convincing argument” points and therefore his only argument at this point as we head into the final round, is that Pro should have won because of the concessions. Politeness Although not necessary I will just make two quick points about this. Yes it is good to be polite, but being polite does not mean taking responsibility for being unclear. The words “my inability” do just that. There were also many other phrases in the debate that had this kind of tone, some of which I listed above. My opponent’s only rebuttal was this: “As far as the rest of the underlined portions they do not imply in any way that pro is at fault for being unclear.” I only stated that the first quote implied Pro was unclear, the other two statements were examples of how Pro was not convincing in his arguments because he did not display any confidence in what he was saying. Conceded Argument "3 Fulfilled prophecies are indeed evidence of both god and Judaism.” There are two main issues with this argument: 1. Lack of any organization made this argument extremely difficult to understand. Even after reading it a few times I still have a hard time going back to see where the quotes end and the argument begins. Debate arguments must be clear. Pro can not make his arguments difficult to understand and then pounce on Con for not understanding what the argument was and therefore not responding. 2. More importantly, Pro did not even make the argument my opponent claims. Pro had the burden of proof to provide valid evidence of God and Judaism. For his argument to have accomplished this he would have had to have done the following: A) Show the quotesB) Explain how the quotes qualify as fulfilled propheciesC) Explain how fulfilled prophecies are evidence of God For the first quote, the only arguments made by Pro besides the quote are as follows: “I would now like to get to some other points particularly a combination of prophesy regarding the uniqueness of the Jew with quotes to show the realization of these prophesies…” “…We see from these quotes the impressive eternity of the Jew. This has been foretold in the bible Genesis 17:7, Malachi 3:6, Leviticus 5:18, Jeremiah 5:18.” In this set, Pro does not explain how his quotes are fulfilled prophecies. Simply saying “the impressive eternity of the Jew” is not an explanation. Next we have his second set of quotes: Mark Twain wrights of the desolation and unsuitability of the holy land. As we see today the land of Israel is now an agricultural land following the return of the Jews. The sources for this prophesy are Leviticus 26:32, 33 duteronamy29:21, 22 Jerimia9:10 Ezekiel33:28, 29 all predict the desolation of the land. The return is predicted in Deuteronomy 30:3-5 and its following inhabitation and fertilization in Ezekiel36:8-11. We see here the prediction and realization of the Jews miraculous return followed by the lands mysterious revitalization..." In this portion Pro did not even provide the quote but instead a reference for the readers as to where they can find it. Pro can not expect Con to research a quote that was never provided in order to refute it. And in neither of these examples did Pro explain how a fulfilled prophecy is evidence of God. It is not a conceded argument if Pro did not make the argument to begin with. Conclusion: My opponent has clearly conceded that Con made the more convincing argument throughout the debate and only falls onto his argument that Con conceded his "prophecy" argument. But I have clearly shown how it should not have been considered a conceded argument. Victory to Con is justified.