The universe is finite.

He mentioned me some fifty (50) times in his last round, I don't think I've ever been mentioned so much in a debate; I'm touched. .. I won't say where. <3 On a serious note, this may act as a subconscious trigger for the readers, no I am not joking. He directly adressed me multiple times calling my claims bogus, this will have effected you. I hope that when you vote on this debate you can disillusion yourself from his influence, and vote according to your consciousnce. In the end its simple: my opponent strawman's my arguments in a variety of ways, and then tells you to ignore really anything in my last round. Please read with an unbiased mind, I trust the voters here. I accept that I have to argue from a fixed standpoint, and this means that I won't bring in other positive arguments. This does not mean that I cannot explain the same argument in different ways. Introduction & Onus:To start off allow me to explain what I mean by "necessarily". This is a Formal Logic assumption. When we say X, it automatically means []X. [7] What this means is that my opponent cannot give a probability argument. S/he must give an argument which if true would mean that this Universe is definitely/necessarily/without doubt a finite Universe. So long as s/he does not do this, I win. I in turn need not give any positive argumentation as the burden of proof falls on my opponent entirely. Not only has s/he Proposed this motion, s/he is the one giving the positive claim, as well as making an affirmation. My opponent must show that this Universe cannot be anything but finite, while I do not need to show that it is infinite, rather I only need to show that my opponent cannot prove it is definitely finite. Maybe it could be a middle milkshake? On a serious note though I only need to show that my opponent's arguments are not correct. For the logical nuts, here it is in Logic. My opponent needs to show []X where X is the resolution. I need to show ~[]X, which is <>~X, so I only need to show possibly not the resolution. Clarification of Position (Only quotes from previous round): "Firstly we need to understand that the Universe is expanding, and this has been proven empirically. ""Now this expansion forces the light waves to be streched, so much so that their wavelenght increases considerably. ""This wavelenght increases to the point that 1100 times longer than the original wavelenght. ""This light becomes radiation, and this radiation is present during night time, its simply that our eyes cannot identify it. "This was the main case that I presented. It was late, I was tired so I did mistakingly name it the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation when I should have said it is like the CMBR. The CMBR is in itself the name given to such radiation, only it is the one that is specific to the radiation coming from the Early Universe. The concept though is the same, it was one line. My opponent completely forgets the crux of the argument: that the Universe is expanding, and by this expansion the light is streched so much that it first becomes infra-red radiation, and incidently then becomes microwaves (moving forward on the spectrum). This light too can be seen rather easily, only this light is reduced considerably due to redshift. [3][5] I was not totally wrong though, this explains why the Universe may be infinitely large, what of infinitely old? Well that is explained by the CMBR. The energy of emitted light from the Early Universe is red shifted, and so even if the Universe is infinitely old, the light from millions of years ago would not make the night sky bright. This infinitely old Universe could still exist because redshift makes the energy light of the Early Univers into Radiation known as CMBR. [3][4]Trust My Claims, Do Not Trust Nymphomaniac's StrawmanTo be honest my opponent never even tackled any of my case. He does not deny that the Universe is expanding, and I cannot se any proof as to why this expansion would not cause redshift. I also see no explanation as to why this expansion would force light energy radiation to move along the spectrum and become microwave radiation. This radiation fills the sky on high, and can be seen from anywhere. So when my opponent has not even answered any of my arguments, and continues on his rant, what are you dear reader supposed to do? Vote Pro. .. I kid, Vote Con. :)[7]Introduction to Logic by Harry J. Gensler Ajab