I will not contradict myself.

I shall finish this debate by solely focusing on the contradictions which I've accused my opponent of making: ============ CONTRADICTIONS: ============ >>>>>>>>>>>>>Concerning Contradiction # 1: RE: "Real: being or occurring in fact or actuality; "real objects"; "real people, not ghosts"; "a film based on real ..." Not at all and EVEN my opponent realizes this. For you see ladies and gentleman, the terms real and exist possess the same meaning. Let us take a gander at merriam webster's dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com... QUOTE: 1 a : to have real being whether material or spiritual b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions My opponent agreed that ideas exist. Therefore, he is to agree that they have REAL being . . . RE: Real is 'being or occuring in fact or actuality.'" Agreed. Unfortunately for my opponent, the mind is "being or occurring in fact or actuality." It is however just not on the same plane of reality as things which exist outside the mind. A different playing field so to speak. Think of it an airplane. There are certain people who are luckily seated in first class whereas other people are seated in 2nd and 3rd class. Nevertheless, all of the people can be considered as being inside the airplane. The same applies here. The primary problem with my opponent's argument is that it simply boils down to him defining real on the basis of his authority (someone who has every reason to define a term to work in his position's favor). Without acknowledging that, we have no reason to uphold his position. On the other hand, as you can see, I've offered an unbiased source that confirms my stance (merriam webster's dictionary. A credible one to boot). RE: The idea of Santa Claus can exist in the mind whether or not Santa Claus is infact Real. Common sense shows this Santa Claus is not real (or so I am told.)" "RE: One last note on this 'contradiction,' I may or may not have reached into my bag of assorted hallucinogens, containing joints made from a variety of dangerous drugs (http://www.buzzle.com......), pulled one out, and smoked it this afternoon. This particular experience gave me the idea that I was a mermaid. I suppose that if my opponent believes that the simple idea that St. Nick exists would be enough to make him real, then my opponent is debating a mermaid, for I had that particular idea this afternoon. The problem with my opponent's cute anectdote is the fact that it is (intentioally) misinterpreting my argument in implying that I'd view Saint Nick as being on the same scale of reality as I would most things. However, as you can see based on what I've already argue: Although ideas are real/exist, they are not in the same category as the word than something such as a polar bear or a speed boat.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Concerning Contradiction #2: RE: "Due to time constraints (bed time) I won't be able to read my opponent's source. I'll assume, based on the context used, that his source shows some proof or evidence supporting the claim that the Bible says God can't do anything. There's atleast 3 possibilities here:" I suspect my opponent is attempting to pull a fast one given that merely reading my source would provide evidence of God being listed as doing something which he cannot do. My opponent has used this ruse so that he may argue based on the technicality that he can both believe that the Bible accurately interprets who/what God is and believe that God can do anything. In order to get around this tactic, I need only offer you (the audience) reason to believe that my opponent is in fact aware of some of the information on the page I linked to. 1) I posted a scripture cited in my source in the comment section. As indicated by my links below, my opponent has been online recently, thus has had ample opportunity to see the comment 2) I added my opponent to my friend's list recently while throwing in the cited verse on the friends comment. Given that my opponent accepted my friend request recently, he had to have seen it. This makes it to where my opponent is in fact shown to be aware of an instance in the Bible where God is shown with restrictions, hence solidifying this as a contradiction. Thanks for the debate. :D SOURCES: http://img148.imageshack.us... http://img26.imageshack.us...