An infinite substance exists and exists alone

“Pro loses this debate because he has essentially agreed with my ontology of non-existence.” No link between this supposed acceptance and the negation of the resolution has been shown, and neither has proof of the acceptance at all been provided. “He now clarifies that by "reason for non-existence", he really meant "lack of reason for existence"” I didn’t “now clarify” that – the idea of a reason of nonexistence as being a lack of cause has been present since my opening round. Note that, even now, my opponent never offers an argument against this conception, instead attacking strawmen. “Either an infinite substance DOES have a positive reason for existence (and therefore exists), or it does NOT have a positive reason for existence (and therefore does not exist). No amount of word-play can get around it.” I agree – voters should keep this in mind when considering my argument. This works wholly in my favour. “nothing can exist without a positive reason for existence, which is just another way of saying that "non-existence is the default state, and a positive cause is necessary to escape it."” I have said from the start that every existent must have a cause, but there has never been any basis for discussion of a “default state,” nor has my opponent maintained its relevancy. “It has clearly been established that non-existence is the default state.” If by “clearly established” my opponent means “wildly asserted in one sentence,” then yes. “I'm also not sure what Pro was aiming for in bringing up the PSR's second contrapositive, since it in no way contradicts anything I said, nor does it really do anything to support his argument.” I’ve explained this directly in my syllogism – the dual contrapositives rule out any nonexistent which has a cause of existence. The sole contrapositive my opponent first offered only showed that things without causes do not exist – he did not show that things which do not exist do not have causes. The distinction is clear and my opponent has no reason to ignore it. “Neither of these even come close to a positive reason for the existence of an infinite substance. Therefore, Pro has not affirmed his 2nd premise, his syllogism is not sound, and his burden of proof is not fulfilled.” This is completely and demonstrably false. My opponent completely ignores the fact that I showed that there can be neither an external nor internal cause of an infinite substance’s nonexistence, and instead only brings up the first part of my conclusion. From Round 1 (COMPLETELY DROPPED): “This reason or cause [of nonexistence] must either be contained in the nature of the thing in question, or be external to it]“ If I have shown that there is no cause of nonexistence external to an infinite substance (which my opponent has not challenged), and also that there is no such internal cause, then there can never be such a cause. The proposition “X or Y” is false if both X and Y are false. If X and Y map to the existence of external and internal causes of nonexistence, and if both are false (as I have shown without any opposition), the proposition is necessarily false. This is undebatable. Keep in mind that my opponent openly dropped my argument vs. internal contradiction: “I was also going to argue that an infinite substance would be incoherent due to its contradicting attributes, but Pro seems to have pre-empted that, and it's worded way too confusingly for me to even try comprehending it, much less refuting it.” My opponent’s P2. fails on this basis: “P2. An infinite substance does not have a positive reason for existence” I have shown, beyond doubt, from first principles, that the only alternative is impossible. Q.E.D. Q.E.D. Q.E.D. Q.E.D.