Our existence on Earth is pointless.

Con Argument 3: A. He says I failed as a con to refute any arguments, but all my arguments are in some how wrapped around the debates topic. B. I agree that we are not arguing over whether or not there is an after life, but it seems to me like our reasoning for life is well based on our afterlife. C. Pointless and useless are defiantly not two different things because they are tied together, if something has no use it also has no point. D. You are telling the voters that our existence has no point. Regardless of the religion you base your life on other than Atheist. There will be an afterlife and that is the point and/or use of your life. E. There will be an afterlife and that is the point and/or use of your life. F. I have made my own point and I will not continue to argue my opponents points for this round. Call that bad conduct, but it is also the truth. Pro Response 3: 3A - You have not refuted any of my arguments and you have not really made any strong ones of your own. Arguments can be wrapped around the resolution yet still ineffective for the side using them. Your arguments are not only ineffective but misdirected. Also, not exactly aimed at argument A but if you don't understand some of my arguments, how are you qualified to debate against them? 3B - Afterlife isn't a usable reason! We cannot be certain of an afterlife and you've provided no evidence whatsoever. If I want to live for/on the basis that when I die I'll become a super happy rainbow unicorn, then I can by all means. Does it make it anymore true than the proposition of an afterlife? NO. You're going to have to provide serious evidence if you want to keep arguing on the basis of an afterlife being the point for our existence. 3C - Wow, I tell you not to argue semantics and you do it anyway. I refuse to argue semantics with you. This debate is about the resolve, not definitions. 3D - Yes I am telling them that and you've done nothing to stand in the way of my arguments other than keep rambling about an afterlife. If you'd like to debate the existence of an afterlife, please go elsewhere. Living your life for something you aren't entirely sure is there is completely futile especially when there is no proof for an afterlife and never will be because you can't experience afterlife without dying. Afterlife occurs post-existence and is therefore not even relevant to the resolve. This debate is about the point for our existence, which is LIFE, not AFTERLIFE. Until you can prove the existence of AFTERLIFE, it is not an element of LIFE. 3E - Without proof we cannot be certain of an afterlife. There is not even any reasoning that could lead you to that deduction other than, "My consciousness is so important that it must never end. " You're being really stubborn and within your stubbornness you aren't even persuasive or argumentative. 3D - You made your point but I refuted it entirely. If you're refusing to argue against my points, than how can I make any more points directed at you? I've said everything I've wanted to at this point in time, it's now your turn to refute it. That's the point of debate. Conclusion: Con now refuses to debate me on the premise that he is certain he is right. We'll see how well that works out for him in the votes. Con is rude and stubborn by accepting my debate and then refusing to refute my points. Instead, he keeps pushing forward the concept of an afterlife with no reasoning shown.