I will not contradict myself

=========== Contradiction #01 =========== Type in 'define: flattery' on Google and you will come up with this: . http://www.google.com... A list of the most common sources for the definition of flattery (including the ones I posted) All of them say that flattery is necessarily excessive. These are the most commonly used definitions, and I see no reason why we should use any other source. Pro, however, provides a definition from here: . http://encarta.msn.com... An obscure Microsoft dictionary that I've never even heard of. But then he claims: "No matter how many definitions he provides, he cannot prove that my definition is not a true definition of flattery. " This is just nonsensical. Could I define flattery as 'the quality of being flat'? Not at all. Definitions are not 'Anything goes;' if your definition is from some unheard-of dictionary and contradicts the most common and accepted definitions, I would say it would certainly require soom justification. .. yet Pro hasn't provided any. =========== Contradiction #02 =========== My opponent seems to think that a question being 'hypothetical' somehow makes it incomparable to an actual question. I'm not seeing the connection in his argument, but it doesn't matter. Let's just make both hypothetical. Hypothetically. .. If I asked "Are statements in round 1 correct? " then Rule 5 would protect him from answering because using round 1 arguments violates rule 5. (This hypothetical situation has been empirically verified above) Hypothetically. .. If I asked "Are statements from previous debate correct? " then Pro would be allowed to answer 'yes,' and I could then use previous debates, though this violates Rule 5 normally. (Pro testified to this being the case) These are both from Pro's answers and are clearly contradictory (he doesn't contest that they are mutually exlusive. ) Now they are both in hypothetical form, also, so hopefully Pro can now understand. =========== Contradiction #03 =========== By Pro's logic, 1 infinity + 1 infinity = 2 infinity. This is known not to be the case. Still, it matters not. Even by Pro's logic, he is incorrect. 9.999(9) x 10, accoring to Pro, equals 9.999(9)0, not 9.999(9) I'm not sure from where he gets this, but let's continue the equation assuming that to be true. X = .999(9) 10X = 9.999(9)0 10X - X = 9.999(9)0 - .999(9) 9X = 9.000(0)0 X = 1 .999(9) = 1 We still arrive at the conclusion that .999(9) = 1, thus Pro has contradicted himself. =========== Contradiction #04 =========== "I clearly typed 'several of the STATEMENTS' in my answer, and there are several imperative statements in my first round. " Pro doesn't believe this. If there were true, he would have pointed out the 3+ statements that he made. There are no sentences OR statements beyond the 2 that I listed. If Pro thought otherwise, he easily could have proved it by posting the one that I missed. He hasn't done that, so he hasn't proven his above assertion to be true in the slightest. This means he has still contradicted himself here. =========== Contradiction #05 =========== "'Do you make more than $1,000 weekly? ' is not a statement of my income status. " It isn't? What is it a question of, then? He knows he's contradicted himself, and he's grasping at straws here. If I asked a man, whose salary was $101,545.32 what his income status was, he would most likely respond "$100,000," maybe even "$101,000" but it would be a queer thing to here "My income is $101,545 and 32 cents. " We don't refer to our income specifically, we give it in general approximations. Pro need not tell me his exact income, be it $1 or $999, to inform me of his income status. Even the way debate. org works attests to this. In setting your income status, does it prompt you to enter your exact income? No. It asks you where, in general, your salary falls. It gives you a few options such as "Less than $25000," "$50000 - $70000," and "More than $100000" to name a few. This then shows up on your profile as your Income Status. Pro has given us such an approximation of his income, thus revealing his income status and contradicting himself yet again. ======= Conclusion ======= I simply needed to show that Pro contradicted himself once. He's made this quite easy by contradicting himself 5 times over.