Con made, or will make a mistake in this debate

All humans are flawed. They make mistakes all the time, through oversight, through emotional worries, or through merely being human. Con cannot deny the fact that he is human. Indeed, a psychology study shows 10 common flaws in human (https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/10/12/what-are-we-like-10-psychology-findings-that-reveal-the-worst-of-human-nature/) -- the belief of karma, the idea that we would rather go through pain than boredom, our overconfident nature, our selfishness and vanity, so on and so forth. The fact that this debate has five rounds makes this even harder for him. He has to have no spelling or grammar errors. He cannot forfeit, because then conduct would go to me. Now that I have linked a study myself, it then follow through that unless con wants me to accuse him of the mistake of not having sources, he must supply a source. This is very difficult; this only concerns con himself. If he posts a link to his profile to show examples of him not making mistakes, one, he hasn't one all the debates, meaning that his argument wasn't strong enough, and thus, a mistake. Even if he was Oromagi or Ragnar, he cannot make a generalization argument, just because you have yet to make a mistake does not mean you won't make a mistake. Finally, con cannot post as little as possible, perhaps a truism like "I think, therefore I am", because not directly addressing my arguments could lose him the argument point, and thus would be a mistake. Now you see the problem that concerns con.

Finally, con has already made a mistake accepting this debate. Through accepting, con implies he understands what mistakes are. This is common knowledge. But even if he makes it through all five rounds without making a mistake, has he really learned anything? He would have just wasted time overcoming my false assumption (since he would have perfectly gone through all rounds). What would he have gained from this meaningless debate? And isn't waste of time, one of the worst mistakes you can make?

This is essentially a trap debate. Pro states I can't have any spelling mistakes. As a man who went through college, I think that I shouldn't have any spelling mistakes. Con states that I must make a mistake, because mistakes are inevitable, but that is not true. I can make absolutely no mistakes, and Con has no way of proving that I will make a mistake. Since Con can't predict the future, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof.

My opponent has committed a dangerous mistake just the last round, confirming the premise. Firstly, I clearly misspelled in the last round, saying " one, he hasn't one all the debates", which in the context, is meant to say "one, he hasn't WON all debates", but "one all debates" is completely meaningless, which con completely fails to notice. This is a crucial mistake. If your opponent is wrong about something, you should point it out. Con seems adamant on this notion. But he himself has failed to notice this.

He also ironically made a grammar mistake in the very last round. Grammarly says that he accidentally included a comma after "mistake" -- https://prnt.sc/u6ci2c, which is a grammatical mistake, however small. As such, he has already lost the debate. 

He thinks I can't predict the future, but I only intend to repeat the same points over and over again and keep trying to aggravate con to make a mistake (if he is able to negate the fact that he has made one). As such, unless con proves he can learn or gain something from this debate, it is a waste of time (as said in round 1), and would hence be a mistake to even accept this debate or even post arguments for it.

As predicted, con forfeited. This is bad conduct and a horrible mistake indeed. He has also failed to counter any of my arguments, another huge mistake. As you can see, Con made at least one mistake in this debate, fulfilling my burden of proof. Vote for pro.

i concede cuz i forfeited

Extend

e  

end

well u see i lost but i actually won