I will not contradict myself.

Throughout this round, I shall use the power vested in me by Rule #9 to define any words in any questions that my opponent used to create contradictions with the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at my own discretion. As my opponent did not define the words as he asked the questions, he has no authority to define the words therein; that power rests only with me. My opponent claims that I "had an opportunity" to define the words in the questions that has passed, but nothing in the rules suggest that my power ever expires; I may define the words at any time, the only restrictions being that the definitions must come from Merriam-Webster and that, naturally, I musn't contradict myself. Any definitions that I establish fundamentally override any definitions that he has proposed when accusing me of contradictions. Any definitions that I cite are viewable on Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, linked in Round 1, with the exact definition locations provided.CONTRADICTIONS:C1: The Substance ContradictionWith my power, I define "horse" to mean "a large solid-hoofed herbivorous ungulate mammal (equus caballus, family equidae, the horse family) domesticated since prehistoric times and used as a beast of burden, a draft animal, or for riding," definition 1a(1). Therefore, "horses" refers not to a potentially harmful and illegal substance but instead to animals. There is therefore no contradiction.Even if my opponent had the power to define words, which he does not, his proposed definition would not work, because "horses," plural, cannot refer to the slang term "horse" which is only used in the singular; "heroins" does not make any sense. C2: The Beaver ContradictionWith my power, I define "beaver" to mean "either of two large semiaquatic herbivorous rodents comprising a family ... having webbed hind feet and a broad flat scaly tail, and constructing dams and partially submerged lodges," definition 1a. Therefore, "beavers" refers not to any pieces of armor but instead to animals. There is therefore no contradiction, as I have never claimed that there is a connection between beavers and knights.C3: The Dwarf ContradictionWith my power, I define "dwarf" to mean "a person of unusually small stature," definition 1a. Therefore, "dwarves" refers not to any legendary creatures but instead to small people. It is not contradictory for a realist who does not believe in legendary creatures to believe that dwarves exist, because they do [1].C4: The Ideas ContradictionThere is an important distinction that must be made between ideas and physical things. This computer exists. The idea of this computer exists. The idea of a unicorn exists. A unicorn does not exist. The claim that legendary creatures are ideas, which is necessary to substantiate my opponent's supposed contradiction, is imply false. The creatures are not images; they are creatures. It is not contradictory to claim that the idea of something is not that thing itself, or that the idea of something can exist while that something does not. I have never claimed that an idea is synonymous to that which it represents (in computer science, for example, a reference to an object is not the same as the object itself, and a reference can refer to something that does not exist), so such a claim has no part in any supposed contradiction of mine.The second proposed contradiction of the pair relies on much the same falsehood as the first, so I merely refer you to the above paragraph. C5. The 'I haven't contradicted myself' ContradictionThis contradiction isn't really a contradiction at all, as I have consistantly claimed that I have never contradicted myself, making my belief that I have not contradicted myself an unwavering, noncontradictory statement. Additionally, even if this contradiction were valid, it would rely on the contradictions above, and I have disproved all of them, thus subsequently negating this one as well. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...; I would like to remind all voters that according to Rule #7, the sources vote goes to the victor of the debate, regardless of which debater actually used the most sources. Thank you, jm_notguilty, for this debate; you gave a, while futile, noble effort. I hope to debate you again in the future.