Bird cannot fly

Here is my opponents first argument that I am trying not to laugh at. He says I don't have sources for anything. FIrst of all I have 2 sources for my definitions. Second my opponent believes I need a source for the following, birds are not mammals, penguins can swim, humans are more powerful then birds. I will let the people who vote decide weather this is common sense or not but I learned this stuff in middle school I don't know about you guys but yeah. I will extend my argument by pointing out that my opponent doesn't have a single source yet he try's to say I need sources and yet I provided 2 for definitions. So since my opponent hasn't posted a single source I don't see why its fair for me to have to post sources anyway to show where I found arguments and allow him to find holes. Since my arguments are mostly common sense arguments this isn't a problem but what I am saying is it's not fair in general for me to have to give sources and allow him to find holes in arguments but he doesn't provide any for me to do the same. I will attack the rest of his arguments 1. He says this, Projectors can be projected onto the dust particles and other particles in the air/atmosphere. You might not know this but there IS stuff up there! First of all this is one major example of him not providing a source and 2nd he didn't prove how a projector can cover the whole earth and that one of that ability is in existence. He hasn't shown how a projector could project all the birds in the U.S. let alone all the birds in a city. Also he hasn't proven that birds aren't real while I have with the definition I got from Bing. It says they are alive and warm-blooded while he doesn't provide a definition for what a bird is so you must go by mine. 2. My opponent try to claim that he is backing up birds are real, guys even if you buy this consider my earlier argument birds have been alive for millions of years and the U.S.A government for about 218 years. Also my opponents consider all the birds you see flying, I doubt America has the time or money to project all the flying birds we see everyday. THis is his next argument: Although not everyone believes in evolution, it is commonly viewed as the correct theory of creation by a large majority of modern societies. You have gone wildly off topic by talking about religion vs science. My response: I never bought up the world religion to be honest lol idk where you got that from. Unless you are assuming most who don't believe in this theory are religious which is true but a good percent simply don't believe in it because it sounds stupid, and if you do believe in it then birds can fly because the scientist who back up evolution believe in birds, dinosaurs, and virtually every animal today. My opponent challenges my views on conspiracy theories: I believe in a lot of those so I am not narrow minded, I believe bush backed up a NWO and went to a secret school and did rituals, I believe in aliens, I believe that Thomas Jefferson did some evil party acts, I believe that the federal reserve is evil, don't tell me I am narrow minded cause I am not. COnclusion: I have won for the following reasons. 1. My opponent hasn't proven a project is real that has the ability to project extremely realistic flying birds and is big enough to cover the U.S., or he could prove there are a ton of projectors with this ability around the U.S. but he hasn't. 2. HE hasn't shown a logical reason why the government would do this. There is no gain from the government making us see images in the air. Birds have no effect on the economy or the governments power whatsoever and until my opponent shows some sort of benefit then birds do fly.