Agnosticism is self-contradictory in at least one way.

The alleged discrepancies over formality. Firstly, I had never accepted Pro's definition, as was stated in my first speech, it wasn't clear where the alleged inconsistency comes from, as it wasn't stated until the second round; secondly, having judged many policy debate rounds, it's clear, many debates revolve around meta-debates—or, debates about the nature of the debate—and very rarely does a debate end without a set of issues being singled out as voting issues, issues which are not necessarily the main problem involved in contending the resolution, so, in short, I can legitimately debate Pro's definition: (1.) because I never agreed to any definition (which, for me, isn't so important, since Pro's contending my critique of his definition is his feeble attempt to maintain the integrity of his circular arguments) and (2.) all content of the debate is up for debate—again, the only literature Pro has on "agnosticism" in his speeches is a dictionary definition, weak (hence the vagueness of his position: I know of no one that lives a dictionary definition—and that's the burden, does he know of or can he cite any avowed agnostics?); thirdly, Pro needs to get straight on his second contention in this debate round, since, Pro uses subordinating conjunctions like "therefore" and operates with premises (things that precede a conclusion) to support his conclusions—if he, as I would suggest, reads Lewis Carroll's The Game of Symbolic Logic, he will see that any set of statements, so long as they have some relation to each other (and even if they don't) can be taken into a formal organization so as to derive a conclusion (even if that conclusion be that there is no conclusion), thus, to say he didn't intend his contentions and conclusions to be formulated into a "formal syllogism" is a red herring, for what is a debate if there isn't some logic to our support of a resolution? (and, to say you didn't intend a faulty logical consequence doesn't defend you from having fallen into that faulty consequence). Since I've shown there are issues with the conclusions Pro has drawn, I'll continue on to Pro's 3rd contention and A1; firstly, I'm not sure how to make any sense of A1 since if an agnostic, we'll dub them (A), knew someone else, we'll dub them (B), didn't know that God exists,--well, I don't see at all how the agnostic received that knowledge from God, they could have simply had a conversation: "Hey, do you know if God exists?"…and so forth, so, this is irrelevant; secondly, my arguments about revelation are not ineffective, actually, they support my claim that agnosticism is a position of epistemological humility, amongst many other positions of this variety: (1.) my opponent, Pro, faultily assumes that when someone has experienced revelation, and realizes that it's not clear what it was that revealed itself, though they intuit it to be God, and know that no others are going to be able to understand what they saw of reality at the moment of revelation—well, in short, my opponent wrongly assumes that the person having had revelation thinks that they know this truth personally, for what is a truth that no one can share with another?—what is a truth if it isn't clear where it came from, why it came, or what it pertains to?—I don't understand how my opponent can't see that a "personal truth" stemming from revelation, is a truth whose complexity cannot be understood in very simple terms much as other truths, like truth as correspondence, where one thing is true if it corresponds with another ("snow is white if and only if snow is white"); (2.) the burden of proof concerning the problems of a dictionary definition of agnosticism are not my burden, they are Pro's, he has no examples of anyone who lives agnosticism, it is a belief system, and belief systems are lived by individuals (and, in fact, they are often modified, dropped, held in abeyance, and so forth,--that is, they are subject to all sorts of changes because they are not static), so, Pro needs to show me some reference aside from a dictionary, since a dictionary also has definitions for belief systems like nihilism, which can't ever be lived, since even a nihilist must believe in physics for him to get up in the morning and walk over to his bath.