I will not contradict myself

1. According to Merriam Webster's, gay is defined as happily excited. Therefore yes, I have been gay in that definition.2. Your first statement of this round was "Thanks for the response." Therefore, no I didn't respond to your statement.3. I believe there are false statements in the Bible or Koran, yes. Let me also say that I never said that I abide by the Bible or Koran, I just believe it is authoritative. Doesn't have to pertain to me.4. Objectify as defined by Merriam Webster's is to give expression to (as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others). Therefore, yes I do. 5. Sexist is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex. Therefore, no I am not sexist.6. No, I do not believe that homosexuals should be killed. 7. To beat is defined as to strike repeatedly. Accepted is defined as capable or worthy of being accepted. So I do not believe that it is worthy to accept beating your wife.8. Yes, I am in favor of the death penalty.9. Yes I do object to dumb policies (or laws, rules and regulations). To object (verb) is defined as to feel distaste for something. Therefore of course I feel distaste for something dumb! This is only logical.10. A breast is defined as either of the pair of mammary glands extending from the front of the chest in pubescent and adult human females and some other mammals. However there is something completely wrong about this question. It speaks in the plural form. I have no idea how many women and which women he is talking about. It does not say "any" women. Therefore in the case of all women, no. But in the case of any woman, yes. This question is invalid and should be dropped.Since will have no rebuttal to my opponent's claims for he has not said any yet, I would like to solidify my answers in this debate.His second question in the first round is: "Is killing never morally acceptable?" However he does not specify if killing HUMANS is morally acceptable. Therefore I must assume there are certain situations in which killing can be acceptable. One is the lack of intention. If I walk on the street, and accidentally step on an ant, this is acceptable for I had no intention and even no idea I was about to kill one. Another example is self-defense. If I am being killed for no apparent reason, it is only moral to protect my own life and this response is completely solidified. If a woman is attractive, then of course I enjoy looking at her. Again this is completely logical. Even if I was a homosexual, this doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy looking at a woman who is attractive. Again lady parts do not refer to all the parts, just more than one, so the answer is solidified.In response to the flowers question, I have picked flowers freely in my own backyard. No apparent problem here.Ah, now what I believe the opponent will attack me on. "Do you consider the Bible or the Koran an authoritative document?" I think he was trying to ask is this authoritative over me, but this a totally different question. All I have to say to justify this is that I believe it is authoritative over many other people, therefore it is authoritative. Any atheist or theist who denies this is completely illogical. Answer SOLIDIFIED.Moving on to the judging people on intelligence question. To judge is defined as to form an opinion. So if you are forming an opinion JUST by observing them, it is wrong because you can be inaccurate. Just is defined as very recently. You can not quickly observe someone and get a certain answer on whether someone is intelligent or not. Therefore it is generally wrong and my answer still stands.Lastly, law-abiding is defined as abiding by or obedient to the law. I do abide by laws (never specifies what laws) and I am obedient to them. If he is referring to federal laws, I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I abide by them and do not break them. For my opponent to say I break them would be illogical and completely false. Thus this answer stands.So due to the fact that I have solidified every response and not contradicting myself yet, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot. I would also like to point out that you are not allowed to point out new contradictions in "round 5", but since this is a 3 round debate, the last round. Therefore, I believe I have won this debate and urge an affirmative ballot.