Resolved: Should home schooled students be able to play public activities.

I have a hard time figuring out what my opponent is shooting for. Not only did she not post her case in the first round of debating, she held it off to the LAST ROUND, giving me the least amount of time possible to refute it. This in itself is highly abusive to me, so I ask that you take that into consideration when viewing the round.A second point to consider: my opponent never really states a case of her own. All she has are refutations of my single point. Since the burden of proof in this debate is inherently split between us, I'm going to be better proving my BOP best because I'm actually providing proof as to why my side of the debate is right. She has no evidence as to why her side of the debate is right, only why my side is wrong. Thus, she CAN'T fulfil her burden of proof, and off of this very easily we can vote con. Even if you buy all of her refutations against my case, I'm the only one with a risk of offense in this round. All she has is terminal defense, which ISN'T enough to fulfill her burden of proof. So here's the first easy place to vote con before I even adress her counter-arguments, which I shall do so now. Her first point was that since she believes that if anyone of highschool age and capable of doing the activity, they ought to have a shot. I don't deny this, except for the fact that when HOMESCHOOLED kids are taking the spaces of PUBLIC SCHOOL kids who are actually enrolled in the school, that's when we have something wrong. If it were something outside of the school, then there wouldn't be a problem. But that's not the resolution given by my opponent. Also, this point is hingent on her belief, which is hardly fact. Just because I believe that unicorns and dragons and aliens and Spongebob and Demonized Nambian Antelopes exist, doesn't make it in the slightest bit true. Because of this, her first point is refuted.Her second point is something that I'm a little bit confused on myself. Apparently to my opponent, I'm saying that if we allow homeschooled kids to join public school activities, then riots will break out.Wait, what? Hold on a second. When did I say this? I ask the voters to look back at my sole point and find where I mention this at all. The answer to that, to save you time from having to pointlessly look, is that I never mentioned this. My argument is specifically that if we allow homeschooled kids to try out for positions on public school teams and activities, that we deny those who actually ARE in public school. If home schooled kids wanted to be on a public school team, then why can't they just enroll in public school? My opponent then asks me what harm would come from it. I clearly explained the harm in my sole point that if we allow those who are home schooled to try out for public school teams, then we are certainly denying those, who before would've gotten a spot, a spot to someone who doesn't even go to that school! How is this right!? THAT'S the question that needs to be answered.Aside from those three points, there isn't anything that stands up against my sole point. And since I have refuted all three points, my argument can be cleanly extended. Thus, since I best fulfill the burden of proof, there's no other vote to cast but one for the con debater.