The Universe can be objectively defined as matter in motion

First I would like to begin by thanking Pro for this debate. Thank you Pro. I would also like to thank Pro for completing the debate. Thank you for that as well Pro. To begin this final round, I would like to clear a few things up concerning this debate. Pro wrote the proposition. Pro is the instigator of this debate. The burden is on Pro to support and argue for his proposition. Pro, quote round 4, "Furthermore, Con has yet to [provide] a better definition that proves more objective." (I did in round 1, and at the end of this round, although not required by Con) As this debate is set up, that isn't a responsibility of mine. In this debate, Pro is to argue that his proposition is correct. Con is to argue that the proposition isn't correct. There is no place where Pro states, "Con must argue for his own definition over this one." Words have meanings. It is important to adhere to the meanings of words in order to communicate effectively. If we all walk around with our own definitions of things, communication would become impossible. In Pro's last round he gets very loose with the definition of motion. "Just substitute "motion" for the more specific term "energy"..." Lets use some examples to see if this makes sense. Instead of "I just got my energy bill," we get, "I just got my motion bill." Instead of, "I'm dragging today, I need an energy drink." we get, I'm dragging today, I need a motion drink." Instead of, "The Sun rains down lots of energy on the Earth," we get, "The Sun rains down lots of motion on the Earth." One last one, instead of, "Energy=MC2," we get, "Motion=MC2." Do any of these make sense? Pro, what does a Kilowatt of energy covert to in motion? Is it a kilowatt of motion? What does that even mean? Energy has a definition. Based on that definition, energy exists. Pro has dismissed energy entirely from the universe. Since the vast majority of the world, educated or not, seems to be in agreement that energy exists, Pro would have needed to present some very strong evidence that this global consensus is wrong. That hasn't happen in this debate. I've presented several arguments that support the perspective of energy existing and being prevalent in the universe. These include Einstein's equation E=MC2, cosmologies assessment that the universe comprises of 73% dark energy, and the Higgs field having a positive energy value of 126 GEV and existing at all points in space.. None of these have been refuted or even argued against by Pro. I've offered definitions of energy and matter, of which Pro hasn't contested. At this point, we can safely conclude energy exists, and is very prevalent in the universe, existing at all points to varying degrees. To that degree, I think we have a clear verdict regarding this debate. Pro begins with his proposition, "The universe can be objectively defined as matter in motion." Pro the makes this a bit simpler in round 1 with this equation, "Universe=Elementary Particles+Fundamental Forces." I attack these points by arguing space is fundamental and stating it needs to be included in the definition. In round 4 Pro concedes this point and changes his equation, "Universe=Space+Matter+Motion." This is a concession that the original proposition and original equation wasn't correct, which is what Con is arguing. In addition to that, we still don't have energy in the equation. I think we have another concession with his redefinition of motion. "...substitute "motion" for the more specific term "energy." Two problems here. First, if energy is the more specific term, then energy should've been used in the first place. Second, as the earlier example sentences pointed out, this "substitution" doesn't make sense. Motion(doesn't equal)MC2, Energy(equals)MC2. In conclusion, Pro's definition of the universe has left out the two most fundamental components of the universe: space, nothing can exist without it (Pro concedes this point), energy isn't included in the definition, despite existing at all points in space. This last point was never refuted by Pro. Therefore we are left with a clear case, both space and energy must be included in any "objective" definition of the universe. Thank you readers. Thank you Pro for the debate. A little extra credit. I offered my definition of the universe in round 1. Universe=space+energy. With that I offer it again. Not needed, but provided just the same.