I will not contradict myself.

Hello again and much thanks to my opponent for his nimble footed rebuttal and his answers to the final set of questions. I think it is obvious that Pro is not being entirely honest with us in his claim of mistaken identity regarding communist writer Karl Marx. He has admitted as much in the comments section and I think the idea that a young American (with a lot of interest in politics but whose idea of good music is Jimmy Buffett) would be more familiar with the 20th century composer than the revolutionary thinker is clearly ludicrous. Further circumstantial evidence can be found from the fact that it is the Marx of Marxism that my opponent's Wiki link actually leads to rather than the Marx known for his choral compositions. The fact that a link posted to the composer actually redirects to the philosopher clearly demonstrates who is more well known. I've tried reposting the link to the composer's page myself, it doesn't work. I suggest readers navigate through the top entry on this link: http://www.google.co.uk... Moreover I think I could reasonably argue that Pro's answer to the "Do you agree with anything..." question rules out his agreement with ANYONE bearing the name Karl Marx as I have already demonstrated at length. In the interests of humouring my opponent I shall however now prove that, according to several of his answers, my opponent does in fact agree with Karl Marx the composer (hereafter referred to as KM-C) on many things. KM-C was a devoted student of natural science before deciding on a career in music. As such he would definitely agree with my opponent on the following points: Q. Is the world round? A. Yes. Q. Does gravity exist? A. Yes. As a devout Christian who wrote many choral pieces in worship, I am also sure KM-C would agree with the following too: Q. Do you think the Bible is a good basis for morality? A. Yes. Q. Do you sin? A. Yes. I can find no information on whether KM-C was pro-choice or pro-life but it is fair to say whichever position he holds he must agree with one of the following: Q. Are you pro-life? A. Yes. Or, Q. If birth is certain to kill the mother but the baby would survive then is abortion justified? A. Yes. As a sometime supporter of National Socialism KM-C would also surely have been Pro-labour unions and Pro-death penalty as well as believing that all people do not have an equal right to life. My opponent has clearly contradicted himself because there is no doubt that he agrees with all people called Karl Marx on at least one thing. No matter what our beliefs are, we can all find common ground somewhere, to say you disagree completely with ANY individual on all issues is a certain contradiction. ---- In addition I believe Pro has broken the rules in his last post. By answering "I don't know" to questions he could easily have researched on, Pro has failed to answer these simple questions or provide an explanation why Yes or No is not sufficient. According to the rules this means he should automatically lose, although he already has of course due to his contradictions. --- A true Christian who believes the Bible is a good basis for morality would of course be interested in the most accurate translation possible of the original Hebrew text inspired by God, not the imperfect and flawed NKJV. "Footnotes: 1. Exodus 20:13 The Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence" http://www.biblegateway.com... The Hebrew word 'XRC' or 'Ratsach' (spellings of transliterated Hebrew may vary) that is used in Ex 20:13 does include the concept of murder but is clearly a much wider term for almost any kind of killing including as an act of vengeance and clearly including execution. http://www.biblestudytools.com... If a Hebrew writer wanted to specify murder or unlawful killing they would have used the word 'GRH' or 'Harag'. http://www.biblestudytools.com... My opponent also ignores the issue of the death penalty going against Jesus' message of forgiveness. --- "I can be Pro-Life for innocent lives, but Pro-Death for guilty ones." I maintain that this is a clear contradiction and Pro did not qualify his pro-life stance as only applying to the innocent, he merely answered yes. Further more he has compounded this contradiction as he already claimed that the living (all guilty to a true Christian) have more right to life than the unborn (innocent). Q. Do the living have more right to live than the unborn? A. Yes. --- I urge voters to click on my opponent's Merriam Webster definition of human: http://www.merriam-webster.com... They will see that the definition he picks out is the last and most obscure definition (the only one that needs an example to explain the context). It is actually a sub definition 'b)' tagged onto the following: "having human form or attributes". Clearly in any conventional sense of this definition as well as the other two more standard ones, true Christians believe Jesus was human. Also, he may never have sinned but the whole point was that by becoming human he made himself "susceptible" to sin, pain, death and all the other attributes of the human condition. His ability to resist temptation was significant for the very reason that he was "susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature". ---- I don't believe there can be any doubt that my opponent has lost this debate/game, although that will of course be up to the voters to decide. Thankyou.