Prove me wrong

My opponent makes three claims, and as suggested by the title of the debate, my resolution would be to prove these claims wrong.My opponent's claims and arguments, however, are fundamentally flawed as I will briefly demonstrate. Notice that I only need to prove him wrong once.The three claims are: My opponent is (always) right, thus he cannot be proven wrong. There is no evidence against the first claim. Assuming there is no evidence against the first claim, this would prove the first claim. First claim: From the get go, my opponent begs the question, thus commiting a logical fallacy. Basically, my opponent had assumed that a questionable and/or debatable claim is proven in order to prove an other questionable and/or debatable claim. This is probalamtic as it uses circular reasoning. How do you know you are right? How do you know you are not having a long dream and everything around you is an illusion? How do you know that anything other than the fact that you are thinking is real? Not only is my opponent unable to prove his argument sound, rendering it meaninglless and defensless, but he is also wrong. As you are probably aware, the mental ability for children is less than their adult years. Adolescence marks the beginning development of more complex thinking processes (also called formal logical operations) including abstract thinking (thinking about possibilities), the ability to reason from known principles (form own new ideas or questions), the ability to consider many points of view according to varying criteria (compare or debate ideas or opinions), and the ability to think about the process of thinking....During adolescence (between 12 and 18 years of age), the developing teenager acquires the ability to think systematically about all logical relationships within a problem. The transition from concrete thinking to formal logical operations occurs over time. [1] The first claim neccessities that my opponent is alway logical, which would not be possible until mental development. Which means he had false beliefs like egocentrism, and did not grasp some logical concept like conservation of liquids when they change shape. Furthermore, learning from mistakes is an effective method of learning. And even if his mind is developed to effectively use logical thinking, to be always right he have to be always logical and not make any ascertain proclaims or assumptions. The first requirement is not reasonable unless my opponent's emotional attachement is similar to a robot; humanbeings are social creatures, emotions is in our nature. The second requirement is not practical, to break it you need to have infinite knowledge, otherwise you would not be able to make any assumptions unless you know you are always right. So how can you know you are always right? The most reasonable possibility is that you are an entity unlike other humans who probably possess infinite knowledge, and for some reason using the internet. However, this claim is absurd, in addition such an entity have no need to use the internet. Pride implies use of emotions, and unless this entity possess infinite knowledge, that emotion would make the entity prone to being wrong and illogical. Second claim: The rebuttual is similar to the first claim. So I shall summarize it into a deductive argument: 1- My opponent is a humanbeing. 2- Since my opponent is a humanbeing, he is prone to practical, emotional, and logical obsticles while possessing limited knowledge. C- Therefore, my opponent can be wrong, thus he can be rightfully proven wrong. Unless my opponent wishes to challenge one of the two premises, my opponent cannot be always right. Third claim: This is the definition for argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument from ignorance. [2] A logical fallacy. This is basically checkmate for my resolution. As a once (un)wise secertary of defense said: there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know. -Donald Rumsfeld Basically, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", and since you made a fallicious statement, your third statement is proven wrong. [1] http://www.urmc.rochester.edu... [2] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...