I ,too, wont contradict myself

Welcome to Round 2. I'm simply going to be covering my opponent's arguments and rebuilding a bit. It shouldn't be very long at all. Here we go, *well I meant to change it* I do not doubt that my opponent meant one thing and said another. However, my opponent should have simply left his mistake well alone and played along to not contradict himself. But because he decided to go against what he said, he contradicted himself. This is simple enough, the the fact that the opponent 'meant' a certain thing doesn't change the fact that he, with his own words, directly contradicted himself. I posted the comment 'lul' to insure that comments can't be deleted, so the readers of this debate can go see for yourself this evident contradiction. *since it [starts] when you start asking me [questions]* My opponent states that he didn't have to contradict himself until after the the questions start, however this is quite simply a lie. A debate starts when an opponent takes a debate. I took the debate, and the AFTER the opponent made the comments that contradicted. Also, my opponent simply stated he won't contradict himself. Seeing as he didn't place any restrictions on this (ie I won't contradict myself during this round, or I won't contradict myself while wearing my favorite shirt) then it applies universally to him across the whole debate. This means he is purporting that he won't contradict himself not only in the debate, but not in the comments, or even the forums either. So because of this, he contradicted himself, and it most certainly counts. *the rules have been [changed]* This is proof that my own opponent admits to contradicting himself, following the assumption that he is the one who believes he can 'change' rules. I'd like to make the point that he can't change rules though. As I said earlier, actual intent doesn't make contradicting statements any less to the contrary of each other. However, this also doesn't mean that the statements are true. Meaning my opponent's belief that he can simply add or change rules is completely unfounded and unfair should they be supported. I agreed to his statement of 20 questions in the debate, but I will not agree to the rule change that the contradictions can only start being counted once the questions have begun. *didn't say [my] comments counted* See my previous argument on the rules of the debate. *1 - you should* Referring to the very first argument by my opponent he says that I should ask 20 yes/no questions. This assumes, of course, that they will be answered by either yes or no. However, here the opponent clearly answered with neither a yes or a no. Because he did not follow his premise of yes/no questions, he has contradicted himself, in that he is doing one action that contradicts a previous statement. So even if it were to be accepted that contradictions don't become legitimate until questions start, here is a contradiction stated clearly after the round started. *yes that is a lie* My opponent stated he would answer yes/no questions with yes/no, and was therefore bound to it. This means he left himself open to be contradicted by a question such as the one I asked. I asked if the statement "This statement is a lie." is true. He stated it was not true. So following the answer to his question, he is saying that the statement "This [statement] is a lie" is false. That means he is stating it is true. However, if it is true, then it isn't false like my opponent stated, and it certainly goes against what the statement originally said. This is called a paradoxical statement, meaning it can't really be given a truth value state (yes or no). But because my opponent said he must answer in yes/no, he has binded himself to always answering incorrectly on paradoxical statements. Now why is this a contradiction? In a debate, each debater assumes that they are debating the truth. When my opponent sides with a false statement, he is debating for a lie. Because the opponent went from debating for the truth to debating for a lie, he has contradicted himself. The only way out of this argument would be to admit that he is arguing with the assumption that he must lie, which would warrant his loss even on its own. -Conclusion- My opponent contradicts himself outside of the round and inside of the round, and does not manage to adequately defend the former of the two (not having a chance to refute the latter). Because he fails to show how he hasn't contradicted himself, he has lost. I will have more questions later, and there is only one that I leave the debate with. 3) What is your screen name?