MTN Dew Causes Autism

As this is the last debate round, I will first negate my opponents "arguments", and then summarize & conclude. Pro, you have never supplied proof that mountain dew causes autism. The most you did is cite a VERY unreliable source on conspiracy theories surrounding a certain airport, which, as you may note, has absolutely nothing to do with mountain dew causing autism. Furthermore, you have failed to provide any evidence of the alleged conspiracy put forth by ex-President George W. Bush and a few (seemingly random) individuals such as Donald Trump, yet you claim that you simply stating that is proof enough. That is false; no-one is exempt from providing solid, hard-core evidence. Your continued assertions of "they are fooling you" and "this is fact", which you've repeated since the beginning of this debate, are completely irrelevant - unless you can provide proof, they are null and void. You made the statement of "I invite you to prove me wrong." That is a logical fallacy, known as an argument from ignorance. You are making a very large assertion, that mountain dew causes autism. You are the one with the burden of proof here [1], as you are the one making the claim. I need not prove that mountain dew *doesn't* cause autism, only disprove/negate *your* arguments that it *does*. I dispute your claim that you have "been to mountain dew [factories]." At this point, as the voters should note, you do NOT have the best of reputations, as you have been making outlandish claims for the entirety of the debate. To be brutally honest, I don't trust your personal experience. I did, however, find another source on a similar topic! The "How It's Made" film crew visited a soda factory, and recorded footage for use in an episode [2]. I don't really see any evidence whatsoever of "extra chromosomes" injected into the mix, nor any siphoning off of materials for injection into Doritos either. Now you may say "sure, but they just didn't show that on film!" Nice try, but if there really was a global conspiracy dedicated to doing what you claim, do you think they would even allow the film crew into the facility? To conclude my debate argument, I'd like to summarize the debate and make my final arguments: === *Pro has claimed that Mountain Dew, a popular soft drink manufactured by PepsiCo, causes autism. Pro has completely failed to provide any evidence for this claim. *Pro made numerous outlandish claims ranging from usage of "extra chromosomes" (apparently the "Bushism" chromosome) in Mountain Dew to a "Drath Star" shooting an "Autism Beam". Not only are these arguments completely unrelated to whether Mountain Dew causes autism or not, but they are completely unproven and immensely damage Pro's credibility. *Pro has attempted to cite very unreliable sources -- in this case, conspiracy theory websites -- that are both irrelevant to the issue at hand and also seriously damage Pro's credibility. I, however, have cited numerous sources to disprove Pro's claims, and have made my best attempt to educate Pro on such things as the burden of proof, the actual ingredients of Mountain Dew, and the Dunning-Kruger effect. *Pro has critically misunderstood his/her burden of proof, claiming that I have to "prove [him/her] wrong. This is a fallacy; Pro is making the claim and thus has the burden of proof here. As Pro has not met his/her burden of proof, his/her arguments are null and void. == Please consider the above when making your vote. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.youtube.com... If you want more information on the burden of proof, I found a fairly decent video on it, although it is not specifically aimed at conspiracy theories: https://www.youtube.com...