I will not contradict myself

Here are the contradictions my opponent missed and failed to defend: (Please take note of abbreviation, for ex: R0Q0 = Round Zero, Question Zero) C1: The Law-abiding Contradiction In R1Q9, I asked my opponent if he’s a law-abiding citizen, to which he answered ‘yes’, and he defined ‘law-abiding’ as abiding or obedient to the law, and to specify things more, he even defined 'abide' as to accept without objection. But, in R2Q9, I asked him if he objects to dumb laws, to which he answered ‘yes’. If he really is law-abiding, if he really accepts the law without objection, then he shouldn’t object to dumb laws. Contradiction. C2: The ‘Authoritative’ Contradiction In R1Q7, I asked my opponent if he considers the Bible or the Koran authoritative documents, to which he said ‘yes’, my opponent never defined ‘authoritative’, which is a mistake. ‘Authoritative’ is defined (by the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary) as clearly accurate or knowledgeable, so technically, I questioned my opponent on the Bible or the Koran’s accuracy. Now, for my R2Q3 question, I asked if there are false statements in the Bible or Koran, to which he says ‘yes’, so he contradicted himself on agreeing that a Religious document is accurate but also agrees that there are false statements in it, which is a contradiction on the accuracy of said item, so bottom line, an authoritative document cannot be considered accurate if it’s got false statements in it. Contradiction. C3: The Sexism Contradiction In R1Q4 concerning my opponent’s answer if he enjoys looking at women’s lady parts, and in connection of R2Q10, concerning my opponent’s answer if he enjoys looking at women’s breasts, any person would know that I’m talking about women in general, but my opponent did say ‘yes’ to both, so that supports his R2Q4 statement in which he ‘objectifies’ women. And in R2Q4, I asked if my opponent is sexist, to which he says no, but sexual objectification may be considered sexist {. http://en.wikipedia.org... }. And by my opponent’s definition of ‘objectify’, meaning to give expression to (as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others, he forgot to put the adverb ‘sexually’, and make it experienced from others sexually. This can be synonymous to treating someone as a sex object, which is blatant sexual objectification sexism. C4: Death Penalty Contradiction In R2Q6, I asked if he believes that homosexuals should be killed, to which he answers ‘no’, and in R2Q8 I asked if he’s in favour of capital punishment to which he answered ‘yes’. Now, I did not specify if homosexuals should be killed by what or on what reason, and my opponent really didn’t clarify his stand on these issues, so I sense a contradiction. I couldn’t find a definition of the death penalty in the online Merriam Webster’s, so I’ll use a different source. The death Penalty is defined as the sentence of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense. {. http://en.wikipedia.org... }. Homosexuality is considered a capital offense and punishable by death in Saudi Arabia {. http://en.wikipedia.org... }. Now, this means that if he really is in favour of the death penalty, then he must accept and believe that gay people should be killed (via DP) because it is considered as a serious offense.