Agnosticism is self-contradictory in at least one way.

In reading and considering CON's objections I will try to summarize what I believe to be CON's main problems with PRO's ideas, here goes: 1. In the first, third and last paragraph from CON it seems clear that the definition of agnosticism is a HUGE issue if not the very main issue that CON has! 2. In the second paragraph, CON has a problem with the consistency of the contentions (esp. in A. ) matching with the conclusion and believes a logical fallacy is or may be present in the conclusion. 3. In the third paragraph, CON directly attacks PRO's contention B. and claims it is not an accurate claim that can be made. CON raises 2 specific points to consider. In response to CON's ideas: 1. Definition of agnosticism: -in Round 1 if CON hadn't agree with the definitions as presented by PRO, then that would have been the best time to introduce his own definitions. Or at least in Round 2 when CON was actually taking issue with definition PRO used (from a reliable dictionary) it would be good to see what changes in the definition CON would change! But if it is Round 3 before CON presents his own definition, then ok, that is fine. Like I said I'm pretty informal! I just would like to have enough time to rebut things that may be brought up if I don't agree! Also I DO agree and think it is a valid point of discussion. However, I do believe PRO's (and Oxford dictionary's) point of view on agnosticism to be very strong though! -Without a fixed definition in place to argue against - what chance would the "PRO" have? I mean if the definition (of what agnosticism is) can just be shifted or changed for the purposes of the debate then it would be very difficult to argue against the position! -CON says that PRO's "claims are quite specious since they stem from this vague position known as "agnosticism" so, as I've shown, the basis for all the contentions are problematic" ---> that is EXACTLY why a definition must be used and agreed upon! We CANNOT have a shifting definition or else how can anything be debated for either position? PRO's position however is NOT based upon a "vague position of agnosticism" but rather PRO's position is based on a VERY CLEAR and WELL DEFINED definition of agnosticism which was stated in the opening Round. I am not stuck on that definition per se, but it is still a better definition than CON has presented and I actually do believe it truly represents "Agnosticism" very well. .. Therefore I believe that we must go with that definition unless another definition of "Agnosticism" is brought forth and shown to be a superior definition than the one that PRO has presented or until we can come to agreement on definitions and terms better. CON - What in particular do you not agree with definition-wise? 2. Logical fallacy in conclusion: - First of all, I will state that the points I made to support the Resolution were not meant that they had to be taken as a "formal syllogism". PRO did however (for organizational reasons) try to place many SUPPORTING ideas into a logical framework. But the ideas are not necessarily meant to be contingent or dependent upon any of the other ideas but are all meant to be able to stand alone, yet all supporting and LEADING to the logical conclusion that is stated in the resolution that "The doctrine of agnosticism inherently has at least one thing in it that does not make logical sense. " And I do believe the points in fact DO lead to that conclusion! - Therefore there is no "strawman". The definition used in Round 1 is exactly what is being used for a basis of argument for the resolution. - PRO will now add in another idea (to hopefully help clarify and add in another level of support) to an idea that PRO just assumed would be accepted as true. I will label it as A1 here. (PRO will also add in an additional supporting statement with the additional contention). It either may or may not make it more into a "formal syllogism" I don't know. Like I said I am an informal debater. But perhaps it may be of some value in showing that PRO is not trying to jump to any conclusions, but rather has logical supporting reason for each step of the argument which leads to the resolution. A1. Agnostics cannot KNOW what another person knows. -If an agnostic did KNOW that someone DID NOT KNOW that God exists, then they must have received this KNOWLEDGE from God, and if an agnostic received that knowledge from God (that the other person didn't KNOW) then the agnostic HIMSELF would KNOW God exists! thus making him (by definition) no longer an "agnostic". 3. CON's 2 specific points and arguments against B. (Revelation) -1. CON's first argument makes a good point, or rather one that PRO commonly hears and is very happy to discuss and rebut. CON states: "claims to truth cannot make any claim upon another person—that is, if God reveals himself to someone, that person is not able to make that truth into something that another must subscribe to," The main reason why that argument isn't effective is this: A person can KNOW a truth even if they don't SHARE that truth with anyone else! THEY STILL WILL KNOW the TRUTH personally! (that is ALL it means to KNOW something! ) However, EXPLAINING or COMMUNICATING a truth to another person or convincing another person about what a person knows is a SEPARATE ISSUE! -2. CON's second point made on this same subject was this: "one doesn't quite know what thing was revealing truth," -The main reason that this argument is not effecive is that in this argument his source is trying to "put limits on God" that he would have NO WAY of KNOWING! PRO would ask: How would he (or any agnostic) KNOW what powers God has or doesn't have? It should seem to be that any mortal person will not be able to fully comprehend God's powers. (unless perhaps God revealed that to a person - which would go back to the previously expounded upon idea which PRO discussed) If God exists and can create life, and create universes, and is usually defined as being omnipotent and omniscient etc. .. how would a person KNOW what God is or isn't capable of? The answer is obvious - CON's source doesn't KNOW, and is just offering their OPINION of what they believe to be true. In essence James is saying he doesn't BELIEVE the "CREATOR" can make Himself known to the "Creation". And even if that point was true (that God couldn't do that -which seems highly improbable based on the definition of "God"), but the MAIN POINT is that how would HE even KNOW if what he is guessing was right or wrong? He personally just does not have that level of knowledge available to him to say what God can or can't do! In summary: Addressing CON's case: My opponent's summary was this: "my opponent's great faulting is supposing he has understood "agnosticism"" --->this has been thoroughly discussed within PRO's rebuttal and if PRO and Oxford dictionary are in fact "faulting greatly" in understanding agnosticism, then the burden seems to be on CON to show how we are wrong. CONS other 3 points were all addressed rebutted in this round. The resolution still stands that Agnosticism inherently has at least one thing in it that does not make logical sense! I am looking forward to the next round. Thank you.