pro should have won this debate

It would be helpful if my opponent would also take the time to explain why his argument affirms the resolution, but without a more in depth explanation I can only take the very simple position he explained earlier which appears to be: Pro should have won this debate because Con conceded (the end of) “R4a”. I will first affirm my own contentions and then move on to refuting this claim. Who made the most convincing argument? In the previous round I showed that when determining the most convincing argument DDO asks us to analyze 3 different aspects of the debate: Organization: My opponent acknowledges that this point goes to Con Refutation: I stated that Con sufficiently refuted all of Pros arguments. My opponent did not challenge this claim. Apparently the only disagreement is about the arguments that were not refuted and therefore conceded, which I will get to. Analysis: My opponent refutes my contention here by explaining that it is not evident whether the problem is Pros explaining or Cons understanding. I showed the quote as support for my own opinion that it was Pros explaining. I will not go into explaining this in detail because I feel it is not necessary. I will however point out one thing that was very important about this quote, and inherent in many of Pros quotes from this debate: "I apologize for all of this I am extremely frustrated at my inability to get this message across. ” “I therefore ask the reader to read and think carefully and objectively, and I will try to explain” “I hope I have sufficiently clarified this point. I can elaborate in the next round if necessary. ” Again, the question is about who made the most convincing argument. My opponent must understand that there is a certain level of psychology at work in answering this question. Even if the problem was Cons understanding, the issue for Pro is that he is taking the blame for it (in the 1st quote) and validating his own lack of ability to convince the reader with statements like this. A convincing argument is made with confidence, not hope that the reader will understand. Based on organization, analysis, and refutation this debate is a clear victory for Con. Conceded Argument My opponent claims that because of the argument he posted above which was conceded, Pro should have won the debate. Let’s take a look at the conceded argument and how it affects the status of the resolution. To do that I will once again post Pros resolution: “I argue that there is evidence for the validity of Judaism. mainly that there is a god, and he dictated the old testament. ” Again, Pros burden is to show that there was evidence for the validity of Judaism, which can only be the case if there is a God. Con took the position in this debate that there is no valid evidence for Judaism because there is no valid evidence for God. Being that Con adequately refuted all of Pros other arguments, the only way these quotes would mean anything is if they could be considered evidence for God. The reason Con did not respond to Pros arguments above was because there was absolutely no need to. What my opponent has posted are a set of quotes from various people. The oldest quote provided is from John Adams who was born in 1735. A quote from a man born 1700 years after the events of the bible allegedly took place, is in no way evidence for God. Conclusion Con clearly defeated Pro in every aspect of what voters are asked concerning who made the most convincing argument. The only argument my opponent has made to affirm his resolution here is that Pros argument was conceded, yet this argument had nothing to do with the resolution.