I will not contradict myself.

CONTRADICTIONS: C1: The Substance Contradiction In the 2nd question of my R3 post, I asked my opponent if I ‘mentioned’ a substance that can be harmful and illegal, to which I said no, but in the 7th question of that same round, I asked him if knights used ‘horses’. Now, my opponent failed to define ‘horse’, which is a mistake, because according to Merriam Webster, there is another definition of ‘horse’, which is a slang term for heroin {1}, which is an illegal drug/substance that can be deemed harmful {2}. Ergo, contradiction. C2: The Beaver Contradiction In the 2nd question of R1, I asked my opponent if knights have a connection with ‘beavers’, to which he says ‘no’, but in the 5th question of my R3 post, I asked him if knights used helmets, to which he says ‘yes’. Now, my opponent failed to define what a ‘beaver’ is, which is a mistake and it can give me the advantage of clarifying it more accurately. According to Merriam Webster, another definition of a ‘beaver’ is a piece of armor protecting the lower part of the face, a helmet visor {3}. My opponent states that typical knights have no connection to beavers but if he states that typical knights used helmets (which have beavers {3}), then it is a contradiction on his part. (A minor issue, my opponent may claim that when I wrote that question, I didn’t complete it with a question mark, I apologize, it was a clumsy minor mistake on my side, but since my opponent answered it clearly with a simple ‘no’, we can assume that he really understood the question and ignored the typographical error and that there’s no need for me to rephrase or clarify. ) C3: The Dwarf Contradiction In the 7th question of my R2 post, I asked my opponent if he is a realist, to which he said yes, a definition of ‘realist’ according to Merriam Webster, is that it is a concern (engage, occupy) for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary. But when I asked him the next question (R2Q8), if he believes in dwarves, to which he says ‘yes’, but my opponent failed to clarify to which dwarf he believes in, so, again, a mistake, and can give me an advantage of clarifying the term more accurately. The ‘dwarf’ I am referring to is a small legendary* manlike being who is usually misshapen and ugly and skilled as a craftsman {4}. Now, in the 3rd question of my R3 post, I asked my opponent if he believed (to accept something as true/real) in legendary/mythical creatures, to which he says ‘no’, this is contradicting his statement that he believes in dwarves. If he really is a realist and does not believe in legendary/mythical creatures, then he shouldn’t believe in dwarves. Contradiction. (*Legendary- from the word ‘legend’, a popular myth of recent origin) C4: The Ideas Contradictions C4.1: This is kind of similar to C4, I asked him in the 9th question of my R2 post if ideas exists, which he says ‘yes’. Ideas can be defined as an image in mind {5}, and ‘exist’ is defined as to have real being whether material or spiritual or to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions {6}. Again, in R3Q3, I asked him if he believes (to accept something as true/real) legendary/mythical creatures, again, he said ‘no’, but said creatures are technically ‘ideas’, so, if PRO states that ideas exists, then he should also say that said creatures exists, but he didn’t, ergo, a contradiction. C4.2: This also contradicts his statement that he is a realist, when ‘real’ has almost the same meaning as ‘exist’ {6} {7}. So when he says he’s a realist and states that ideas exists at the same time, then it affects his answers on the ‘dwarves’ and ‘legendary/mythical creatures’. Contradiction. C5: The ‘I haven’t contradict myself’ Contradiction C5: In the 1st question of my R3 post, I asked my opponent if he has already contradicted himself, to which he says ‘no’, but according to the previous contradictions I’ve stated above (like the ‘Ideas’ contradiction), which occurred before I posted R3, so he actually had already contradicted himself, and therefore this answer is a contradiction to the accuracy of the previous contradiction accusations I’ve stated. (This also contradicts his statement in the 10th question of my R3 post). ---- Now, since most of my accusations are based on definitions, and that all definitions come from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, my opponent may claim that the definitions in the questions are obsolete or that he was referring to another definition, if he claims so, it is invalid since my opponent had the opportunity to clarify his answers (or state a specific definition pursuant to Rule 9), and his answers in my R1Q9 and my R2Q10 post state that semantics are appropriate in this debate and the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary is a reliable source. Since 1 contradiction is enough to negate the resolution, I urge the voters to vote CON if a contradiction stands unrefuted. I await my opponent’s defense/rebuttals. Good luck! REFERENCES: {1} . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (See definition #6) {2} . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (we can assume that based on the definition per se, ‘addiction’, in a way, can be harmful) {3} . http://www.merriam-webster.com... {4} . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (See definition #3) {5} . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (Definition #1 is okay but definition #7 is more precise) {6} . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (See definition #1) {7} . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (See definition #2)