The religious need to prove God, not visa versa.

Can I please first address the assertion that I have changed goal posts throughout the debate. Not once have I done this. It may seem to my opponent that I first of all argued that the religious simply HAVE to prove the existence of a God, however I never did. That's not what I meant anyway. But what I meant or didn't mean in the first paragraph of my argument, doesn't really matter.This is because I clarified in my second paragraph! So once you've read that paragraph, you can put the first one into context! So then you can build an argument around that! However my opponent failed to do so once again.This is what I don't understand: I made it clear in my first post that what I mean was that for the existence of a God to be taken seriously, the Religious have to prove God, not sit back and relax as we try and fail to disprove one. It's not like I waited until after my opponent had posted any arguments to make this pretty clear. They could have built up a decent argument. But instead they managed to spend a whole round complaining about the apparent uncertainties in my argument. Uncertainties which they then referred to as such "In Round 2, he simply shifted the goalposts, by now adding a context in the form of the statement "for it to be taken seriously."" This wasn't at all a shift of goalposts. Firstly, for it to be one, I would have had to have waited for my opponent to post an argument and then change the goal posts as to render my opponent's arguments redundant. I can't see how it is possible to change the goal posts in one post! The whole post was arguing for the same goals. The first and second arguments do not contradict one another, as context was given (granted it should have been in the first paragraph/opening statement, but I thought it was implied) in the second. This allows my opponent to make a decent argument, as context is given before their first argument. But like I said, they failed to do so. instead they actually posted a small argument, revolving around the wrong goal posts, that there is some physical force obligating the religious to prove God. Which I explained there was not. If anyone changed the goal posts, it was you.Secondly, I would like to further stress the fact that my opponent has provided me with no argument con what so ever. Even after specifically asking them to do so and using a round to clarify what I had already made clear. What they have done is used the smallest things, which aren't even things, like this:" Also, this is only one example of my opponent's references to me as "they." Is he implying that I am multiple people? Would he like to share this conspiracy theory of his? "I only referred to you as "they" because A, I was uncertain of your gender, B, it is customary in a debate to talk to the audience not to directly to the opponent, as this seems threatening and rude. Take for example, "Your argument contradicts what you have said!" And "Their argument contradicts what they have said!" And C, if you have ever taken part in a real debate (which I have) you would know that you debate in teams, not one on one.Finally, context. If my opponent is going to complain about the context of my arguments, may I ask him/her not to post something as misleading as the following:" He continued to contradict himself: "I never contradicted myself as I never said there was any physical obligation for a person to defend a theory of his!" Again to that I say: Well according to the argument you stated you gave evidence for, yes, you are obligated to prove this. "This was taken completely out of context. Now many of you may realise that I am complaining about my opponents argument being based around picking mine apart and not giving any evidence and I appear to be doin the same, however I have given 2 perfectly valid arguments, and I am merely demonstrating that none of what my opponent has said is either valid or an argument.Why would I make a debate based around a fact, because thousands of theists around the world make no attempt to prove God and expect atheists to disprove one. I have actually just looked over my opening statement and have found the following: "This debate is centered around the fact that I believe that we atheists should not have to try to disprove a deity, but rather, the religious should try to prove one."SHOULD TRY! My opponent introduced the physical obligation element themselves!Could my opponent please give an argument for the Con side this round.Thank you, VOTE PROP