Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion.

I will begin my closing round by analyzing my opponents closing round statements. "But yo??? i would know what's what in this religion!!!!" Here, my opponents states that he knows what's what in the religion. However, he gives no conclusive proof that he knows "what's what in this religion". Even if he did, his baseless conjectures concerning the religion still cannot be considered valid without evidence to back it up. As this statement is unrelated to the perfectness of the religion, it is a red herring and must be ignored. "Go to a meeting once in a while!!! There is a huge assembly hall near where you claim to live..... Go talk to one of those people on the street corner once in a while!!!" My opponent advocates that I go find out about the religion. However, not only is this unrelated to the topic, but it is not my job to. Pro is the one whose has the burden of proof to bring evidence that shows that "Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion". I just need to prove all of my opponents arguments wrong to fulfill my burden, which I currently have done without taking the actions my opponent suggests that I do. Furthermore, this is a red herring and should be ignored. "I'll bet you that they will avoid conversion about the guy that started the religion in the first place.. Why because he is the guy that could profisy when the end was coming and when the end didn't come what happened to all the idiots that sold their cars, bought land they couldn't afford, and just enslaved themselves to debt because they followed the original JW....." My opponent goes on to attack the founder of the religion. However, as he offers no evidence to back up his claims, they are simply baseless conjectures, which cannot be considered valid in the debate. Moreover, this is a red herring as the perfectness of a religion has nothing to do with the founder. As long as the set of beliefs is perfect, a drunken hippie that was still high could have created the religion. "I really want people to focus on what i'm trying to say 'cause I'm not good at all this new debate stuff...." This is a red herring and appeal to emotion as this has nothing to do with the topic at hand and tries to get you to feel sorry for him and hence should be ignored. However, if my opponent wants comments and ways to improve based on this debate from me, he just needs to request it in the comments section. I cannot guarantee the best advice possible though, as this is only my 5th debate on this site. "So please when voting try to focus on my main points!!!!! 1. WITNESSES ARE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS 2. JW'S ARE AGAINST ALL OTHER RELIGIONS AND THINK THAT IF THEY QUIT THEIR JOBS TO GO TO A MEETING THAT THEY'LL BE BLESSED FOR ETERNITY 3.JW'S ARE AGAINST EDUCATION BECAUSE THEY WOULD RATHER SEE COLLEGE FUNDING GO TO THE MAIN COMPANY IN NEW YORK NOT TO HARVARD OR FSU!!!!!!" My opponent urges you to focus on his main points, but what he fails to mention is that I have proven all of his arguments invalid. Without evidence to back up his "points", they are just baseless conjectures. These baseless conjectures cannot be accepted as valid in a debate without evidence to back them up. Hence, you must ignore my opponent's points while voting. To sum up, vote Con as Con has fulfilled his burden of refutation, shown that all of Pro's arguments should be ignored, shown that Pro has not fulfilled the burden he needs to fill in order to not lose, and has shown 23 fallacies that Pro has committed. Thank you.