God does not exist.

Thanks for that Pro.5th round concessions are rare, but awesome. Pro could have just conceded and left well enough alone. However, Pro attacks me full throttle, so I shall defend my honor. Pro concedes the debate:"I'll start by doing Con a favor and conceding my first argument, the one concerning the word "superhuman. "My response:This was at one point Pro's "entire argument," but whatever. This is Pro conceding his *only* argument relevant to the resolution, so this is a clear concession of the debate's arguments to Con, and voters cannot ignore it. In fact, voters should be aware of DDO's vote moderation policy on this exact issue. DDO's vote moderation policy states:"A conceded debate is any debate in which one side clearly concedes to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are only moderated [if] a voter votes for the side that concedes. ". http://www.debate.org...Pro has clearly conceded and this cannot be overlooked when voting. Pro continues:"It shouldn't be surprising that I'm [conceding] because, as any voter can clearly see, the opponent's case can't actually be defeated. "My response:It's not surprising that you're conceding Pro; it's surprising that it took you this long to do it. You were so critical of how this debate was veering into triviality and you had every bit of power to concede and end the hyperbolic agony, but instead you doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on the arbitrary idea that "superhuman" can't be used as an adjective to modify the sun, only to admit at the very end that you were completely wrong. .. lame again Pro. Pro complains:"The opponent presented a case which was not topical. "My response:Here I am, thinking that my case was topical since it demonstrated that the sun is a superhuman being worshiped for its power over nature and human fortunes in a debate about the existence of said being, when I should have actually been whining about my opponent's ethics. You see, a debater's ethics are what is topical in a debate about the existence of god, I mean, that must be why Pro focused so much of his secondary argument on my debate ethics, right? In case you're not hip to my sarcasm, I'm pointing out that Pro is a gigantic hypocrite for accusing me of not being topical when Pro has, "explicitly since Round 2 and implicitly since Round 1" devoted much energy to complaining about me being naughty instead of focusing on the topic at hand. Boo Pro again! Pro marinates in his hypocrisy:"My opening statement was designed to make it clear that [Con's] argument was not considered topical. "My response:Which is precisely NOT A TOPICAL ARGUMENT to the resolution, Pro. Do you really not get that? As it stands, you've conceded the topical part of this debate, which is the agreed to (and conceded) definition of god within the resolution, so continuing to point out my behavior/ethics only further highlights your obvious red herrings. Pro laments:"Given that I had researched my opponent before accepting this debate, my opening statement was specifically designed to hedge against this *exact* argument. "My response:How'd that work out for you Pro? Oh yeah, you conceded that my arguments were superior to yours, even though you previously read my "playbook" and knew *exactly* what I would do before the debate even began. Applause. Pro defends:"This is not a reactionary "cry-cry" argument. "My response:You're right. It's a desperate, irrelevant, whiny, complaint-ridden, non-topical, intentionally-ignorant-of-agreed-to-definitions, hypocritical attempt to salvage a debate that you know you should lose and that you had expected to win by unsuccessfully preempting exactly what you knew was coming. See, all of those adjectives have no modification restrictions either. Pro childishly exaggerates:"As a very brief recap, I argued that Con's argument is so egregious, unethical and inappropriate that it warrants him receiving a loss. "My response:As a very brief recap, when one side clearly concedes to their opponent and a voter votes for the side that conceded, the moderators will likely remove that vote per DDO policy. You shouldn't vote for the side that concedes; that would be debate voting sacrilege. Pro, I know you can't respond here, but why did you agree to this "egregiously inappropriate" definition of god in the comments section of the first installment of this debate if you didn't want to debate that definition of god? Directly from the comments section of the debate:Me:"Would you be willing to debate "God does not exist" with this definition? god - a superhuman being worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. "Pro:"Lower case 'g' god? Sure. ". http://www.debate.org...Pro, you now admit that my use of the term "superhuman being" was reasonable AND you clearly agreed to debate this reasonable definition, before the debate, only to complain that I'm being egregiously unethical by defending it? This is extremely lame Pro; not cool. It's unfortunate too, because, next to carbon, cobalt is my favorite element, because of the awesome blue color it produces when burned and it's magnetic, but now my perception of it is slightly tainted. .. Pro becomes the human embodiment of hypocrisy:"It is fairly obvious what Con was expected to debate and he purposely chose to debate something contextually unrelated. "My response:You mean like purposely choosing to debate your opponent's behavior instead of the resolution? Yeah it is obvious what BOTH debaters were expected to debate given your prior-to-the-debate agreement of the topic and your way-too-late concession that I was right about it all. Pro mentions:"We are not learning anything new and neither debater is improving. "My response:This is completely false. We've learned a lot in this debate. For example, Pro learned what the word "contingent" actually means, that his conception of what god should be is not the only one, and that if you really don't like a definition of the most crucial term of a debate, don't respond "sure" to the question "Do you want to debate this definition? "Recognizing this should also improve Pro as a debater. I learned something new too. I learned that a debater's insecurity and the amount of requests to have their opponent receive a loss are positively correlated. Thanks for teaching me oh wise one. Pro generalizes:"Con's general response to my ethics argument doesn't seem to be to deny that his case and argumentation strategy are unethical. "My response:I don't have to deny that my strategy is unethical, because DDO has already done that for me. According to the DDO's New Members Tutorial on Resolutions, Burden of Proof, Semantics, and Picking topics:"Semantic arguments are valid. Religious debates seem to be full of semantic arguments. In regard to usage, semantics debaters will easily tear you to pieces if you get out of step [and] most likely, the audience will applauded the opponent's use of semantics and vote in favor of that opponent. To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate. The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first, sets the definitions for the rest of the debate. ". http://www.debate.org...This just doesn't sound unethical to me at all, and it seems to be precisely what Pro claims I'm doing. Wait, who defined the terms first? Oh yeah, that was me. That means Pro was violating general debate custom by challenging the defined term "superhuman. "Just sayin'. Pro gets errant:"The voter is not disallowed from considering the opponent's debate history given that I explicitly mentioned it. "My response:This is something that DDO refers to as "Cross-Thread Contamination. "According to DDO's personal attack policy:"Another kind of personal attack is where a member in the past posts something and you feel the need to bring up their actions there against them. .. it's just you attacking them to attack. That doesn't help the current debate--it only hinders it. Comment on the arguments presented, and the way they're being presented. Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible. Cross-thread contamination is a personal attack. It is not tolerated. ". http://www.debate.org...Both Pro mentioning my debate history and encouraging voters to consider my debate history isn't approaching this debate with a clean slate, it hinders our debate, and it is not tolerated. So what does Pro do? He f*cking sources my debate history! He doubled down on contaminating the debate and is asking voters to dismiss being tabula rasa when voting. I'm not a moderator, but I am curious as to what the moderators think about this. Pro gets fallacious:"Is Con's argument meritorious or is he debating a truism? "My response:Are false dichotomies meritorious? Being meritorious and debating a truism are neither mutually exclusive nor jointly exhaustive, so a truism could be debated and the arguments could be completely meritorious. Hence why Pro conceded in the 5th round. .. the merits of my case proved successful. Pro reminds:"I'll remind the voters that the ability to copy and paste definitions is not meritorious. "My response:I disagree. meritorious - likely to succeed on the merits of the case. . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Pro's 5th round concession speaks to this. Thanks for the debate Pro.