The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

To go through this quickly, we have a series of the same tired objection to each of my argument, namely, that it is a strawman. No example is given, so I cannot do anything except point out how each argument has been a direct response to the criticism he levied. The fact that in some cases the evidence that is being posed against the theory in actual fact supports the theory would be an example of a rebuttal. The fact that the rebuttal disagrees with what my opponent put is not a "strawman" as they are rebuttals. For example, the fact that the existence of quantized redshifts imply a galactocentric universe (which is false, and my opponent agrees that galactocentricity is false) is a direct criticism, not a strawman, of quantized redshifts. It is known as modus tollens: quantized redshifts necessarily imply galactocentricity. If galactocentricity is false, then necessarily quantized redshifts are false. As galactrocentricity is false, the logical conclusion is quantized redshifts are false. Or, if X, Y. Thus, if ¬Y (not Y) then ¬X. ¬Y. Therefore ¬X.Another case is the jumping back and forth. For example, saying things such as "other models such as the MOND and Carmelian Relativity, correctly fits the curve" and "Pro has made the a priori assumption that all other models other than variations of BB models are false" directly implies that my opponent thinks there is validity in these other models. Or at the least these other models are adequate rebuttals of the big bang theory. If so, then claiming similarly "I will advocate no other model" then directly after claiming "when compared with other models, it fails" implies an extreme dishonesty or inability to stick to what one says. It is the equivalent of saying "no dogs allowed in the hotel", then taking three terriers up the lift into your room. It's making a rule, then breaking it ten seconds later.Maybe, though, my opponent was just pointing out that there are other theories which exist, and whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant (for if they are definitely true, then they are very good counterexamples, if false, then they should not have been brought up at all). May I suggest, then, supposing the universe was made last tuesday? This would completely destroy the big bang theory. The fact that it's wrong means nothing, of course, similar to the other models presented. This is the problem when claiming other theories are successful in X, Y and Z. If they are wrong, then these predictions do not matter. Marxist history predicted a gain of power and social mobility of the proletariat. The revolution, though, did not occur. But we cannot now point to Marxist history being correct because of the gain of power of the proletariat, because that is cherry picking. Similarly, claiming success of a theory in one field while ignoring the theory to be wrong is just bald-faced cherry-picking.Arguments Dropped1) Gravity Lenses prove Dark Matter to exist2) Type One Supernovae prove dark matter to exist3) Temperature distribution proves dark matter and the big bang theory as a whole to exist.Arguments not even engaged1) Resource distribution consistent with and only with the big bang2) Star creation consistent with and only with the big bang3) ZS-theory and ISW each independently justifying the big bang4) The case for CMBR proving the big bangWith that in mind, I'd suggest that arguments go to PRO, for the fact that CON dropped almost all arguments in favour of the big bang or dark matter.Grammar: "Con evidently have better grammar and spelling than Pro."I think that says it, really. HAS, not have, there's only one of you. Sources: My opponent points to no actual examples of non-peer-reviewed sources that I used. I'd maintain I used scholarly peer-reviewed material when making a contention, and highschool material when making any scientific point (e.g. explaining what a Population 1,2 & 3 star is). That is, I used appropriate sourcing throughout. If we are to "cut down" on non-peer-reviewed sources, these are some from my opponent's R3:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...;(non-peer-reviewed)http://www.astro.umd.edu...;(non-peer-reviewed student notes)http://www.astro.virginia.edu...;(non-peer-reviewed) And more. Moreover, my opponent has questioned my sources when there were clearly no fault, further refused to engage any of mine on a debate on matter, whilst I showed multiple sources of my opponent to be incorrect or broken links. With that in mind, I urge a vote PRO on this issue. With that, I shall put the debate up to the decision of the voters on the issue. Thank you for managing to read this far into this debate, and hopefully one learned something from it.