I will PROVE that a finite past of the universe doesn't equate to it coming into being

IntroductionAll of my opponent's accusations pertaining to logical fallacies on my behalf are completely misguided, and I committed no such fallacies. I will show why my opponent's reasoning is flawed in this round. He claims that I am shifting the burden of proof when I request that he support his claims that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is unresolved. Of course, that is not shifting the burden of proof, because it doesn't matter who has the burden of proof to establish the resolution, we both have the burden of proof to establish the claims we make within the debate. Thus, Con is committing the fallacy of equivocation with regards to the "burden of proof", as there are two types:(a) The burden of proof to establish the resolution(b) The burden of proof to establish the claims we make in a debate, regardless of the burden of proof to establish the resolution Even if (a) only applies to me, (b) applies to both of us. Thus, asking Con to support his claims is not shifting the burden of proof. He then claims that I equivocate with regards to the word "unresolved", but he never asserted the meaning behind that word when he used it so it makes no sense to say I'm equivocating. Con also commits the straw-man fallacy by implying that I want him to prove that "unresolved" means "resolved", but that has never been my intention which is clear from my last round. He also keeps talking about an "extraordinary claim" but never supported his assertion that I am endorsing any wild claim. Thus, he is just bare-asserting things without warrant. Ironically, in his introduction section alone he committed the equivocation fallacy, the straw-man fallacy, and the bare-assertion fallacy. B-Theory Con starts off this section with a fallacious non-sequitur. Even though the A and B series of time are mutually exclusive, it doesn't follow from this that I committed the fallacy of equivocation. Also, once more, asking my opponent to support his assertions is not shifting the burden of proof, as we both have the burden of proof to have a foundation for our claims (he just doesn't have the burden of proof to show that the resolution is false). I already showed why Con was wrong in his first round about there being no past on the B-Theory, and I even provided a bulletproof logical argument showing this:"P1: B-Theory is an eternalist theoryP2: If eternalism is true, then the past, present, and future are all realC: If B-Theory is true, then the past, present, and future are all real" Both premise P1 and P2 are not controversial, and Con did not even attempt to undermine my argument (he just called it false without any reasoning). He also accused me of begging the question, but did not even explain how I was doing so. He provided one source to support his position that we cannot talk about a "past" from Wikipedia that states:"Those who wish to eliminate all talk of past, present and future in favour of a tenseless ordering of events are called B-theorists" However, the very next line from his own source states:"B-theorists believe that the past, the present, and the future are equally real."The above clearly supports my position, because obviously if the past, present, and future are real then the past, present, and future exist. Thus, the past exists and we can talk about it under B-Theory contrary to what my opponent claims. Therefore, the resolution has been established as true, as I have provided sources that don't have internal contradictions within them to support my position, unlike Con, who only presented a Wikipedia source which actually supports my position. Nothing comes into being under B-Theory (something coming into being presupposes temporal becoming), thus even if there is a finite past (with respect to any given point on the 4d or n+1d block, not an objective present), the universe doesn't come into being. I am still waiting to know how I am equivocating with regards to the a A-Theory and B-Theory of time, because this still remains as an unsupported assertion from Con. This B-Theory section from me alone proves the resolution true. A-Theory (Prelude)My opponent kicks off this section with a straw-man fallacy. I did not once claim that one can prove an a proiri argument by assertion only. I only stated that one doesn't need evidence, as that implies external verification which goes against the very nature of an a priori argument. Con accuses me of another equivocation with regards to a “temporal dimension” and an “existential dimension”, but didn't explain how I committed the fallacy.A-TheoryMy opponent also quotes me to show that his syllogism was actually a true representation of my argument. However, it is still a false representation. When I stated:"...we cannot say it came into being if that was the case" It was pertaining to:"it is self-evidently possible that there is no "prior" to it's first state at all."Which means that it is the possibility of there being no "prior" which makes it so we cannot say the universe came into being strictly based on a finite past. Con misrepresented my argument by claiming that I was arguing that it actually had to be true that there was no "prior" to the universe, but it only has to be possible. Also, my opponent is correct that a temporally prior to the universe, at which there was no universe would mean that the universe came into being. However, there is nothing about a finite past which necessitates this assumption that there had to be a "prior" to the first state of the universe, thus a finite past and a coming into being cannot mean the same thing and be equivalent.ConclusionCon spent his whole last round accusing me of fallacies I did not even commit (by either simply bare-asserting that I committed these fallacies, or by using other logically fallacious arguments to support his flawed assumptions), which seems like a waste of a round. My opponent also hasn't even addressed my argument without misrepresenting it with shameless straw-man arguments. He claimed that we cannot speak about a past on a tenseless theory, but I refuted that argument by stating that we can talk about a past, present, and future on a tenseless theory for two reasons:i) B-Theory entails that the past, present, and future are all real (which Con's own source supported, and my sources in my last round supported)ii) There can be a past on the B-Theory of time, as long as it is a past with respect to a hypothetically selected point on the 4d or n+1d block, and not to an objective presentCon did not touch on i) or ii). Thus, as it stands I have established the resolution with my B-Theory argument. Even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean that the universe came into being. Under B-Theory, the universe would still have a finite past (which leads to the edge of the block), but the universe could not come into being. As far as the A-Theory argument is concerned, my argument has remained completely unscathed. Modal intuitions tell us that it is at least possible that there was no "prior" to the universe, at which the universe was out of being. However, an established "prior" to the universe at which the universe is out of being is necessary before we can say it came into being. Saying the universe can come into being when it was never out of being, is like saying that the basketball went in the box even if it was never outside the box. The problem is that we simply don't know whether there was a prior to the universe at which it was out of being, thus we cannot say it came into being at this time. We know the universe has a finite past though! Thus, a finite past and a coming into being cannot be the same, and and a finite past cannot equate to it coming into being. If that was the case, then we could say the universe came into being based on a finite past alone, but as I have argued, we cannot.Not one objection from Pro was valid. My arguments still strongly stand without a scratch.Source [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...