I should have won this debate

Rebuttal: contention#1: Evidence for Judaism is evidence for all other monotheist religions False. Prof of the matter is that they fundamentally reject each other. The main difference between Judaism and Islam, which was the crux of the debate, is the acceptance of Mohamed as gods profit and the Koran as gods word. Contention 2: You only asked for evidence, you stated no arguments against what your opponent said False. I refer the reader to the previous round. (2ndly If BoP is on pro and he doesn't do so he loses.) I will now show how con did do more then just demand evidence: To evidence #1 I wrote: a) The claim was made without evidence. R2 b) The original Hebrew bible also has no mistakes. R2 Note in b I provided a clear counter argument. I will go into more detail in response to c3. With regard to the hyper link that my opponent refers to as evidence of the claim. The link was as follows: http://www.saudinf.com... http://www.masjidma.com.... In other words it didn't realy work. . That's not called evidence. I will go into this argument in more detail in c3. I would continue with the rest of the arguments but I have already done so in the previous round. In which I said the main point of this round was to pinpoint the points to be argued. my opponent makes here a blanket claim rather then a specific one. This blanket claim has now been addressed. For each individual argument. I refer the reader to R2 for general responses to each argument. Lastly I will repeat that, anyway, when BoP is on pro and he makes claims without evidence con does not have to refute them with any more than a demand for evidence, until evidence is provided there is nothing to refute. Contention 3: You did not refute all of your opponent's points, and thus that debate's resolution is affirmed From what my opponent writes in c3 it appears he is referring to argument #1. The Koran is the only preserved religious book. I will show how pro refuted this argument: 1) R2 3 lines from the top: " I ask you to prove this, specifically with regard to the original version of the bibl in Hebrew." His response for evidence was a link. It didn't work. No evidence. His response to the counter example of the original Hebrew testament was, that it is a translation of a translation. A claim which con rejected. R3 top. (pro did not realize this until R4) R3. my opponent countered my claim by bring up the dead sea scrolls and minor differences in the texts of the prophets specifically Isaiah. R4. top. I pointed out that con mention specifically the Hebrew bible which is the 5 books of Moses, Isaiah (which is part of the prophets) is not part of the Hebrew testament. R4b. Pro responded that several scriptures were lost. R5. Con responded even if some books were lost they weren't all lost. There were many copies and some were saved. R5b. Pro clearly misunderstood what con wrote. He assumed that what was meant was that certain portions of the bible were lost in their entirety. So to close my argument regarding this pro did not respond adequately to the demand for evidence, he simply provided a link which did not work. Further more he did not refute the counter example of the original Hebrew. p.s. The fact that pro did not provide evidence for his claims reflects that he did not fulfil his BoP.