Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0

I want to apoligize to my opponent for not making an arguement right away, for I had to see if my opponent can clearly give the evidence I asked for, to show us his claims on the book of Daniel from the bible being in a true format to make his prophecies true according to the writings from the bible itself. Before I began my argument on this matter, I think I would like to clear somethings up with my opponent and the voters. 1) My opponent said next to the letter A.) "This is not about the existance of the factural prophecy in history, this is about WHEN they HAVE occured". When I read that I asked myself how can anyone give such evidence if this debate is not about the existance of factural prophecy in history, but yet still ask WHEN they HAVE occured, from what I get from this statement alone is that my opponent also seems like he disagrees with the book of Daniel. He doesn't want the existance or facts for this prophecy in history, but he wants to know when they have occured, so in the long run my opponent not only bascially spoke that he himself find or may find this book false from what i understand, not only that he doesn't not know the true meaning or understand fully his own arguements of this topic. 2) In the section B) my opponent then pointed out "This is a debate that prophetic visions and word from the lord ARE real. So when my opponent state what this debate is truely about I question his attentions towards the topic on the book of Daniel, first i want to give a definition about prophetic visions before I continue saying what i wanted to say. Well there are clearly no definition appointed to prophetic visions, but there is another word used to describe prophetic visions that word is called from the dictionary Prevision: which means like he stated prophetic vision (as in a dream) also another definition: The power to foresee the future. Before i can continue to say anything about this let me get to the 3rd note my opponent wrote about which is letter c). 3) In section C) my opponent then asked me to provide strong relation to directly link Daniels to "APOCAYLPTIC" events (aka 2012-continued). Time to clear this all up for everyone even for me to undersand more clearly on what my opponent is truely debating.1) my opponent topic is Christian book of Daniel - prophecy 2.0. which he is pro (for)2) then my opponent said "if the explanation given to Daniel is that his vision is for the "time of the end" and that vision which is persia's defeat to Alexander the Great, how can this vision be used again for "end of time" anti-christ times?" then clearly does not tell his voters and opponent an explanation or any points or reply to this question I ask him now so he can reply in the next round, what visions can be used again for "end of time" anti-christ times, like what is my opponent truely replying or trying to say about Daniels prophecy.3) my opponent then states which leaves me blank which he stated "also it's clear the term "end time" isnt always for anti-christ. Again i say were does that leave us to even know what he truely trying to say about this debate or what are you applying. 4) Then my opponent ask me to provide strong relation to directly link Daniel to "apocaylptic" events (aka 2012-?) well im CON (against), so why would I provide my viewers and opponent links from the book of daniel to connect it to the apocaylyptic events, when my opponent needs to provide us with direct links about it since he is PRO(for) and I am CON(against). Well I have tried to explain what prophecy meant, and my opponent clearly tried to debunk my definition in his 3rd round arguement. My opponent stated to me that prophecy in the bible is different and more complex meaning then, how we use prophecy today. Then my opponent said after he basically said that "in biblical "future telling" we have detailed specific events based within a very tight marked area which cannot be generalized". Well future telling is the same as future telling, there is no difference. As for the tightly marked events and times well, we still do not know as a society when all the books of the bible was truely written, if it was before or after all events. So what I got from what my opponent said which was prophecy is future telling but not future telling, meaning he really does not know his own debate, or anything he is applying with his arguement but just copy and paste text from the internet with out explanations on what he means. This also goes with the end of times anti-christ text he wrote, a basically it is, but then it is not. Before any one gets more confused I would like to turn this debate back over to my opponent, give him to clearly read my arguement. I as CON (against) this cannot even post an aruguement with out PRO (for) giving reasons or answering his own questions and reason why. not just copy and past but give reason to why my opponent thinks the book of daniel prophecied the "end of times" anti-christ times. also provide his own direct links to the apopcaylipse era for today untill the future. My oponent is once again Pro for this I am against this I am CON against this, I shouldnt have to educate my opponent on why daniel prophecy is connected and all that he ask from me, my opponent should be the one to give reasons and explanations and views and proof on how it is connected its not the CONS job to answer A PROs Question, if i answer that question ill be taking basically PROS side which i fail to do. Again i ask my opponent to read what i just got done saying in this round carefully so my opponent can see where i am coming from on why i said what i sad. I do apoligize to my viewers and my opponent sincerly for not posting up an arguement against my opponent for as you can see what i pointed out we need clearity and no head games from my opponent. So i beg my opponent to clearly read over my posting about three times and his arguements over to understand were I am coming from before posting his next arguement. Now i will wait and see if my opponent changes anything and understood what i was trying to get acrossed to him in this posting. I hope my viewers truely reads this closely with his previous posts before making an actual vote. And my viewers to also try and see where i was coming from and what i have spotted in his arguements that left huge gabs with his debate and his position and views and explanations on his behave of the debate.again i apoligize but i have to turn the debate to you now to rethink and reread and clearly understand were i am coming from before i can post another arguement. cant wait to see what happens in the next round.