I know what caused the Universe

A1) Con concedes that everything that exists must have a distinct counter-attributes. A rock is SOLID and water is LIQUID. And a rock & water can go in the category of non-life vs life which must have counter distinctions. We can increase this category to matter vs non-matter -- non matter are things like time, sound, love -- Both matter and non-matter require space to exist in. A sound wave cannot exist if there are no air particles to influence. Then we can increase this category to everything that exists within space vs everything that is space. So space has seperate attributes which make it distinct from everything else. Everything else is movement, space is non-movement. Everything else has an effect, space has no effect. Everything else takes up area, space provides area. The the final category is existence vs non-existence/something vs nothing. For existence and non-existence must have clear distinctions that separate them both. Existence manifests existence and non-existence removes existence or manifests non-existence. Con says, that Man and Book are also opposites so Woman is not the opposite of Man. Con does not realize that it is Woman that makes Man distinct or else there would just be HUMAN. This is something I have been arguing since round 1 but Con refuses to acknowledge it. There is something specifically opposite about Man and Woman that narrows them down from just being human; Testosterone vs Estrogen for example. Put Estrogen into a Man and he starts to become feminine and vice versa. A book does not have this anti-male property. Con drops my argument that heat is does not exist, it is just another word for movement. Heat does not exist because there is no objective opposite. If heat only exist subjectively then cold only exist subjectively and their opposites exist only subjectively therefore making the opposite of hot and cold valid states of opposition. Con says that to not move at all would be absolute 0. I'd firstly like to thank Con for pointing this out. I should have done it in the first round. String Theory dictates that everything in the universe is made up of vibrating strings i.e. movement. Therefore, if something were not moving it could not be, and all that would be is the empty space which that thing would have occupied or absolute ZERO. http://www.nytimes.com...An area void of EVERYTHING but itself is empty space. I don't need to mention that empty space is not made up of strings. A2) Con thinks that "passing law" is a physical action. I'm not sure what universe Con lives in where the restructuring of an immaterial concept is considered a physical action. The action of signing the new bill of legislation which leads to the passing of law may be an action but the reinterpretation of the law itself is not. If Con wants to argue that ideas exist independent of the brain then he'd have to prove it. Con then argues that "doing" requires an action. This is obviously incorrect. "Doing" implies an action it does not require one. Doing IS acting. That is why the very act of doing nothing equals 0 because they cancel each other out. Con says, that I stated that everything must move to exist, including empty space. This is incorrect. I've mentioned in every round that empty space is the exception because it is the only thing that is not doing anything yet is still existing. Empty Space is simply being. Or, it is providing an area for things to exist in. Which isn't an action, it just is. Just like the number 0. It is the only digit that exists without a positive or negative quantity. It is absolutely neutral. Empty Space is absolutely neutral. 0 is absolutely neutral. Therefore, empty space and 0 are one in the same thing. Con then states that YOU is included in EVERYTHING. That's fine. It doesn't change the mathematical equation. Just replace 2 things in existence with 1 thing - Everything. Now ADD that 1 thing to nothing and you are left with 1 thing, a net result of 0. ADD that 1 thing to empty space and you have 2 things -- Everything + an action, a net result of 1. Or Infinity + 1. (It would have been less confusing if Con did not use the infinite quantity of everything. A Cake would have sufficed.)Con states: "The action of addition already exists because it is part of everything." This doesn't make any sense. How can the action of addition exist if it hasn't happened yet? And if Con wants to include all future events in her/his calculations then why didn't the action make it into present existence? Because the Nothing cancelled it out. Con states that the nothing set in maths is noted by the empty set {}. But I already addressed this in my first argument. The entire premise of my arguement sits upon the claim that this is a misunderstanding of nothingness. Excerpt: "For there to be complete nothingness there cannot even be area or empty space. The gap between { & } is not nothing it is an area that allows us to put numbers {0} or letters in {a}." I feel that Con has been skimming past some of my most significant arguments. I urge the audience to read my arguments comprehensively. Then Con states: "When adding these two sets together, you add an empty set to the set of everything, turning into the set of everything."Correct, I'm claiming that an empty set represent empty space, not nothing. This is how you are able to add them (figuratively). Then Con states: "Second, your calculation equals two, not 0 as you said it would. Your argument is invalid." Everything + the action of adding equals 2. Or infinity + 1. The net result is 1 because you brought 1 new thing into existence; The action of adding. If you add everything to nothing you are left with 1 -- Everything/infinity. The action of adding wasn't able to come into existence. The net result is 0. No new things came into existence because nothingness cancelled it out. If Con didn't decide to use the inquantifiable number of infinity to add to something this would be a lot easier to understand. Con States that you cannot add everything to empty space. All I need to do is revert to math to show that you cannot effectively add infinty to 0 either because that equals infinity. You havn't done anything. A3) Con states that empty space + empty space = more empty space. Clearly Con has not been reading my arguments. You CAN place empty space beside empty space to equal more empty space the same way you can put zero's beside zero to equal more zero's 00000000. But combining them does nothing; 0+0 = 0. empty space combined with empty space = empty space. The Neutrons were a perfect example Con. They demonstrated how there is only 1 absolute neutral which is empty space. Just like there is only 1 absolute positive and 1 absolute negative. Then Con States: "Second, you have not shown how empty space is not part of everything."Once again, Con has proven that he has not been reading my arguments. I never said that empty space was NOT a part of EVERYTHING. I said it is unique from everything else. Just like 0 is still a number but it is unique from all others. Con: "If you can explain why empty space should be considered separate from everything, I will cede the point." Con concedes the point. CONCLUSION I have demostrated how nothingness equals negative, empty space equals neutral and everything else equals positive. Therefore, if we say, "nothing was before, outside or after the universe" we can conclude that nothingness is currently subracting the beginning of the universe causing the infinite regress of time, the outside of the universe causing infinite expansion and the end of the universe causing an infinite life span. Nothing, somthing and infinity all exist at once. http://phys.org...;Nothingness caused the universe. I know what caused the universe.