People can be proven wrong.

I. Hypothetical Scenario.Con refuses to refute this argument based on the grounds that he already did so in the PM. The whole point of this debate was because Con kept claiming he refuted them, when in reality he didn't. Instead, he went on some rant about how everything nowadays is photoshopped. Furthermore, regardless of whether Con refuted it or not, he needs to do so in this debate or else it will be considered a dropped argument on his part. Con is absolutely right though, it is indeed the prosecutors who have the BOP. In this scenario, they met the BOP when they showed the tape as evidence in court. So, I don't really understand why Con is re-hashing this point when it's already been handled. II. Hypothetical Scenario Two.How does the pig-flying scenario not make sense? It's pretty clear and easy to comprehend. If someone claims that all pigs can fly, and are then shown pigs that can't fly, the person was proven wrong. Also, I never said that wings are the only things which are necessary to fly. I said, "the pigs don't have wings nor the capacity to fly." Con is ignoring the entire second half of my explanation in the scenario. My opponent then suggests I should check out articles on levitation, physical mediums, etc., but these have nothing to do with the second scenario I provided - as pigs cannot levitate either, nor act as mediums. Unless Con presents evidence showing otherwise, this line of argumentation remains standing. III. Four other, real-world examples.Con only responds to one of the four examples I provided. Thus, I immediately extend the other three as they currently remain standing unchallenged. As for his response to the smoking example - If only 1 out of 1,000 doesn't get lung cancer, while the other 999 do, it's safe to say that smoking "plays a role in the production of lung cancer". I never said it was the absolute "cause" but only that it "plays a role". Please see my previous round to verify that. IV. Irrelevant argumentsI pointed out that these arguments presented by you, in specific, were irrelevant because they were. I even provided reasoning to show their irrelevancy. I was not "repeating" them, but merely copying them into my round so the audience/judges knew what I was responding to. Con has yet to provide any reasoning as to why they are, in fact, relevant. Thus, I extend this argument as well because it currently remains standing unchallenged. V. L. Ron HubbardMy opponent provided no response to this line of argumentation whatsoever, thus I extend this.He did state this: I believe that your claim that wrongness isn't a negative is wrong.I'm not sure if that was actually a response to this line of argumentation or not, so I'll reply to it here by saying: Prove it. VI. PurityAgain, no rebuttal was presented for this line of argumentation by Con. Thus, I extend this. VII. Absence of EvidenceCon states this in response to my rebuttal: You had plenty of time to present your evidence before but you admit that you didn't. My claim of absence of evidence therefore WAS correct. The first round of the debate is for presenting rules, conditions, and general information about the debate. What you SHOULD have done was just use your first round for acceptance instead of beginning immediately. This is because you are Con and I am Pro. So, I need to build my affirmative case before you'd present the Neg case. You totally went past this general debating rule and began immediately. Furthermore, that claim would only be valid if there was still no evidence presented - now there is. So, while it might have been reasonable to make that claim if I hadn't presented any by the end of the debate, this isn't the case. Evidence is here now, thus your claim is moot. Additionally, you didn't even spell "absence" correctly the first time, so technically you didn't even make the claim since it wasn't the correct terminology. XI. Additional comments made by Con. In your Messages to me you called me a f*cking idiot, an autistic child, & a cowardly troll, & now you tell me that trolling is against the rules?First off, I called you an idiot because you claimed that "you won" in the PM and you had done nothing of the sort. Let's not forget that by this point you had already called me "stupid", "dumb", made an argument about how you aren't a duck which came from nowhere, "crazy", AND you threatened to sue me for defamation after I told you about scientologists kidnapping people.Secondly, I didn't call you an autistic child, I asked if you were autistic because your behavior was leading me to believe that you are. Thirdly, I didn't call you a cowardly troll, I said that if you don't accept my debate challenge then you'd be nothing more than a cowardly troll. Since you accepted the debate, obviously I can't consider you a cowardly troll. Lastly and most important, none of this is relevant to the resolution we are debating. If I'm a troll, what else can I do but troll? Why don't you use your mind instead of writing Dumb things? If you are a troll, and continue trolling, it's an automatic loss for this debate as stated by the rules I posted in R1.You've yet to prove how what I write is "dumb". I'll ask nicely that you stop with the unsubstantiated claims and focus on negating the resolution since it's your job to do so as Con. In closing, I've provided rebuttals to each challenge raised by Con. I've also extended any and all challenges that Con failed to rebut. I now return the floor to Con. Thank you.