The Omnipotence Paradox is Self-Refuting

This is going to be (again) short and sweet. For all of pro's detailed and erudite explanations, his argument is very simple and very false. I'm a little disappointed.Summary of the pro case1. The omnipotence paradox assumes God can do absolutely anything, even things we consider logically impossible2. Therefore God can create a stone too big to lift3. Also therefore God can lift a stone he (or she or it - I'll use the male pronoun) can't lift (logically impossible)4. Therefore God can create such a stone without ceasing to be omnipotentWhat's the problem?In my opponent's logic, God tries to create an unliftable stone, but even when he thinks he has succeeded, he defies all logic and lifts the stone anyway. In other words, God fails to create a stone he truly cannot lift. God tries again, creates an even bigger stone, and still he cannot help but be able to lift it. Annoyed, God tries a third time, but still cannot help but be able to lift his stone. God does not have the power to create a stone which is not only logically impossible to lift, but furthermore unable to be lifted by entities (such as himself) which defy logical possibility.Remember the original construction of the problem - can God create a stone so big even he cannot lift it? If the premise of this argument is that God can defy logic, then to be unliftable by God the stone need be unable to be lifted even if logic is defied. The answer to this problem, according to my opponent's logic, is necessarily no, because in step 3 we read that God is able to lift the stone by defying logic. If this is so, then as my opponent pointed out in round one, God was never really omnipotent in the first place, as he couldn't create a stone even unliftable to his logic-defying powers. Even if God could create such a stone, then as my opponent also pointed out, God has ceased to be omnipotent.The argument that "God can do what God can't" is as absurd as it sounds. Pro has attempted to make it sound plausible by changing it to "God can do what God logically can't." Not good enough. Just because God can defy logic does not give you the license to defeat the paradox on an illogical basis, by inserting the qualifier of "logically" before "able to lift". In point 2 you didn't really create a stone too big to lift, but rather a stone so big that God couldn't logically lift it. Given that God can defy logic, it's illogical to claim a stone God cannot logically lift is in fact something God can't do.But I thought logic was irrelevant!?Why, then I guess you'd be wrong again. Again, just because God can defy logic does not mean that your argument can stand up to logical attack, as you assert when you say your argument cannot be defeated. Unless voters are absolutely convinced that your counter-argument to the omnipotence paradox is in fact the deity, I encourage voters to recognise this point for what it is - a non-sequiter. It does not follow that an illogical God makes all illogical arguments concerning him logical. Even if it does, then I'll just quickly refute you with no logic whatsoever: you're wrong.ConclusionI want to remind voters that this isn't about your views on God or the omnipotence paradox. This is about this specific refutation. This specific refutation isn't actually a refutation, it's an example of God failing to create an unliftable stone.The refutation is negated.