Well then please prove how it didnt. Well that only means that you are helping me. Because using either of those meanings of conceding would work based off of what your response was.
I should mention that you conceding wasn't the only reason our debate ended -- you insulting me played a part in that. I'm suspecting you of lying because: a) you probably ignored my post, reading past it - b) you read my post but couldn't prove he was real. Now, you're stating that you feel that whatever "proof" you gave is good enough; the issue with that is, you might think it's good enough for you, when it's not good enough for your opponent (me).
However, as far as me "proving" how they didn't? Well, that's because the majority of your posts are merely you exclaiming "no" to almost everything and then praising yourself in "knowing" whatever you say is the end all/be all. For example: You thought there was only one area of evolution, and you were wrong; another example: you thought all areas of evolution was dependent on one feature, and again you were wrong. You treated what you said as truth and the right answer, and of course, you were wrong.