Anarchism will lead to our eventual demise

Sadly, my opponent refuses to see the error in her ways, and thusly is going to be the one losing this round. She's really refused to give much of a rebuttal in her last round at all, instead resorting to a form of complaining that went along the lines of "well I wanted to do this, and he didn't do what I wanted him to, so vote for me! :)". Sadly, if debates worked like this, there would be no actual point for debating. I took this debate in order to teach my opponent how to correctly word a resolution to convey the message she wanted it to. This resolution doesn't say what she is wanting it to say. Thusly, she's going to be losing this round because of it. But first, I'd like to go through her list of four points she gave during her rebuttal as to why she's going to win. R1:My opponent thinks because I misspelt a word, she is going to win. Sadly, if this is the number one reason why she should win, it's going to be a clear win for the con. R2: In response to the points I raised as to why her "teenagers are going to rebel and cause us to all go into anarchy! Viva la revelucion! " point, she says a few things that undermine her own argument.1. She says that just because people have or will experience teenagerhood that they will want to be rebellious. However, if this line of logic were true, wouldn't it also be true that since we all have or will experience toddlerhood that we will be forever innocent and not wanting to rebel?2. My opponent concedes her point that "not every teenager is going to be rebellious". Because of this, her impact is not going to be as big as she's trying to fabricate it to be. So on this scale, I'm going to be outweighing on scope of impact because while EVERYONE in the con world would reject anarchy, only an unknown amount of teenagers would accept it in the aff world.3. She still has no warrant as for why rebellious teenagers lead to anarchy. She never responded to this argument that I made in round two. So we have no way to weigh her point here unless it's to say that it's an unwarranted assertion.4. There's still no corrolation between rebellious teenagers and anarchy. If her point is true that ALL teenagers are rebellious, or that most teenagers are rebellious, then wouldn't we have devolved into anarchy by now? She didn't respond to this point at all, and this will be sufficient to take out her argument here. R3:1. My opponent claims I have no sources, thus I should lose. However, if no sources should lead to a loss of the round, then lying about how many sources she has should at least lead to a reduction of points. She has six sources, not including her quoting of the comments section, and tried to sell off that she had eight.2. If all arguments need a source to be considered a real argument, then her teenagers being rebellious point wouldn't be considered a legitimate argument because there's no sources to back this up! Thusly, we can use this argument against her own case and disprove the only point brought up more than once by my opponent with her own argument. R4: My opponet, again, is, more or less, whining about how she didn't get her way and thus should win. However, she refuses to touch on the point that I brought up that:1. The resolution never places this burden on me as the con, thus making my topic ground larger than she's trying to limit me to.2. The burden to prove anarchy is good is nearly impossible to fulfill because it just isn't true. My opponent tries to state that it is by saying that "well anarchists are out there so there HAS to be some pro's to it! Right? ". Wrong. So her trying to force me to debate a position that is impossible to prove true is highly abusive and highly unfair. Thus, it makes my position a) still refutable, yet she fails to do so, and b) more fair because it's possible for me to actually fulfil my current burden, thus being more fair. Thus, because she has failed to adequetly refute my case in her rage that she didn't get what she wanted, my case still stands. You can vote con off of the pro case because it serves as a reason why we WOULDN'T accept anarchism, thus making the resolution automatically false. Anarchism cannot lead to our eventual demise if we do not accept and actively practice anarchism. Since I'm proving that we WOULDN'T accept anarchism, this is a legitimate position for the con debater. Hold my opponent's unwillingness to debate against her.