I will not contradict myself.

Thanks again to my opponent for an enjoyable and fun game/debate. ------------------ I contend that my opponent has contradicted himself numerous times in this debate. Some of my allegations of contradiction he has rebutted on a semantic level, others he chooses to ignore completely. I would like to point out that in several cases Pro felt the need to clarify what the question meant before answering. Eg: Round 1, Q. 4: "Under certain conditions...." R. 1, Q. 6: "Only if you can't...." R. 1, Q. 7: "If by affirmative action you mean..." I contend that in other cases where Pro just answered "yes" or "no" this was because there was no room for misinterpretation, or for unintentional misinterpretation anyway and when, in subsequent rounds, my opponent realised he had contradicted himself he then went back and found alternative interpretations of these questions. In most cases these semantic arguments hold little water or still represent a contradiction and I will examine each instance in this final round. ----------------------------- Firstly however, I will address the allegations of contradiction which my opponent has simply ignored. As this is the final round and my opponent posted much less than the character limit in much less than the available time, I can only assume that he concedes on every one of these points. 1. I stated in the last round that answering "yes" to the questions: "Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything" and particularly the question: "Are you sure you don't agree with Karl Marx on anything at all?" should cover anyone with the name of Karl Marx, be they philosopher, composer or anyone else. My opponent chose not to dispute this. 2. When I suggested that his claim that he originally thought I was talking about the composer was untrue, he did not dispute this either. 3. I said: "to say you disagree completely with ANY individual on all issues is a certain contradiction." My opponent gave no response. 4. I made inferences that because of KM-C's political affiliations he would have agreed with my opponent on several specific issues, presumably because this is one of the few facts about KM-C that could easily be sourced, my opponent did not include it in his request for sources (which according to my opponent's rules are irrelevant in this debate anyway), as he doesn't dispute this, I can only assume he admits the contradiction. 5. I said that: "A true Christian who believes the Bible is a good basis for morality would of course be interested in the most accurate translation possible of the original Hebrew text inspired by God." My opponent responded: "I've always used the translation "Thou shalt not murder," As he does not dispute what I said this seems to be accepting that he is not a "true Christian who believes the Bible is a good basis for morality", therefore an additional contradiction. It is a shame that my opponent did not take the opportunity to rebut any of these points made in previous rounds as I would have enjoyed providing a counter-rebuttal. I can only assume that the reason he ignored these was because he figured he had lost already and therefore conceded them, this does seem somewhat out of character though. --------------------- Okay, so on to the points that my opponent did decide to respond to: 1. Karl Marx the composer. Bear in mind that I have proved this particular issue is actually irrelevant to whether my opponent's answers to the Karl Marx questions represented a contradiction. I am pursuing this point to humour my opponent and because it is challenging and fun. As Pro states: "KM-C, it is extremely difficult to find info about him". This is true and no, I can't find direct evidence of his religious or scientific opinions, however they are strongly inferred by his body of compositions that set music to sacred texts and the fact that he studied natural science in Munich in the early twentieth century. Besides, sources are irrelevant according to the rules put in place by my opponent. Furthermore, my opponent is after all Pro and the instigator so should have at least an equal burden of proof to Con and has failed to prove whatsoever that he disagrees with K-SM on anything, let alone everything. Similarly, while it is indeed possible that KM-C did not have a strong opinion on abortion, my opponent has made no effort to prove this. I think it is highly unlikely that he would not agree with ONE of the positions my opponent has affirmed. (Pro-life and/or abort if the mother will die). 2. Kill/Murder. My opponent writes: "it seems as if the work can be used with only the intention of meaning "murder," based on your source." Assuming he meant to type 'word' rather than 'work' (although K is a long way from D on my keyboard) this still makes little sense and I can only assume that Pro did not read the source properly. This is the word that appears in the ten commandments: Transliterated Word Ratsach Phonetic Spelling raw-tsakh' Verb Definition 1. to murder, slay, kill [ as in execution ] 1. (Qal) to murder, slay 1. premeditated [ as in execution ] 2. accidental 3. as avenger [ as in execution ] 4. slayer (intentional) (participle) [ as in executioner ] 2. (Niphal) to be slain [ as in executed ] 3. (Piel) 1. to murder, assassinate 2. murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) 4. (Pual) to be killed http://www.biblestudytools.com... ------ Below is the word that actually means just murder and does NOT appear in the ten commandments: Transliterated Word Harag Phonetic Spelling haw-rag' Verb Definition 1. to kill, slay, murder, destroy, murderer, slayer, out of hand 1. (Qal) 1. to kill, slay 2. to destroy, ruin http://www.biblestudytools.com... 3. "there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood" ? This makes no sense to me, there is forgiveness without bloodshed. 4. If my opponent wished to apply his position of Pro-life to abortion alone then he really should have specified it in his answers as he did with various limitations and conditions in so many other cases. Surely the living are less innocent and more guilty than the unborn. 5. Humanity. My opponent's rebuttal merely reaffirms his previous argument, he ignores the fact that Jesus was susceptible to sin so still human even under his uncommon definition and does not contend the many 'true Christians' who believe Jesus took full human form. ---------------------------- So, a veritable web of contradictions has been spun by my opponent. According to what my opponent has written in this debate: He agrees with all people called Karl Marx on many things although he claims not to agree with any of them on anything. He promotes life and death. He believes the guilty have more right to life than the innocent but that we should execute them anyway. He believes the Bible is a good source of morality but disagrees with one of it's principle codes. Etc, etc further contradictions listed at length above. Thanks very much to readers, voters and my opponent. ------------ English Noun: thankyou (plural thankyous) 1. Alternative spelling of thank you. http://en.wiktionary.org... ------------ (Mozilla spellcheck has no problem with it either.) Thankyou.