The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God[2]

Con's argument is deeply flawed and fails to refute absolutely anything. I shall now explain why in detail."My opponent is flying to America tonight so if he does happen to forfeit I ask the voters to not judge the debate based on the forfeit but all the arguments that have been presented."Well, thanks. I don't think it'll be necessary, I'm posting this a few hours before boarding time.Rebuttal"It is a little difficult to infer exactly what my opponent is arguing but he throws around allot of talk about how God cannot change definitions. However that is saying God cannot do something. As we've already agreed, God can perform any act thus he can perform the act of changing definitions."We've agreed upon that? Excuse me, wasn't that the God I was trying to disprove? I am attempting to refute the fact that he could perform any act. I have no idea why my opponent said this."Logic also directly ties into definitions thus pro can't treat them as two entirely different things when really they are of the same category."This is where me and Con have to disagree. While definitions may be our human "logic," they are nothing more representations of sensory phenomena in a form we can understand. Changing our understanding of the words wouldn't work either in God's case, because the representations, while invented by humans, would still exist (in the same way that 'math' would still exist even though math is a concept invented by humans to explain the order of the universe- it would still exist as a concept)."Why assume that God could not act in such a way so as that the concepts retained their exact definitions?"Because he can't. We've been over this before, I've explained it to you numerous times."I would also like to ask pro, what is the definition of unliftable?"An adjective describing something that cannot be lifted by any possible means."It has been established that any time we ask the question, can God do __________, the answer is always yes."Again, that is the definition I am attempting to disprove. I never agreed to any such thing. "P.1 God either can or cannot create a stone so heavy he can't lift it while still not committing any act contrary to his omnipotent character. P.2 If God can't than that that is inconsistent with the definition of omnipotence. C1: Therefore God can."I agree with the first two. My burden of proof is to demonstrate that God could not be consistent with this definition. It seems my opponent is doing what I warned him not to, which is presupposing the validity of God's omnipotence."[Premise 1] indicates the true dichotomy that God either can or cannot perform an act. Thus pro must either answer yes he can or no he can't."If I prove that "no he can't," I win. YOU ARE AGAIN CONFUSING YOURSELF. THAT IS WHAT I WAS ARGUING FOR AND HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET YOU TO UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE PRESUPPOSING GOD'S OMNIPOTENCE AND PRETENDING THAT I AGREED WITH YOU. I CANNOT ARGUE WITH YOU AT ALL BECAUSE YOU HAVE MADE NO REAL ARGUMENTS TO REFUTE!"We are assuming this type of God does exist."My point was that God's logic defying powers (and thus his omnipotence) could not be presupposed. I refuse to answer this at all. See my answer to your previous contention."Pro's statement is assuming the non-existence of God, thus essentially a non-omnipotent state."I am not assuming anything. I am trying to prove the non-existence of God."This however obviously asserts that God cannot do something when it has been agreed that God can do everything."Again, and for what seems to finally be the last time, I only agreed that that is the definition of omnipotence I was trying to refute.ConclusionCon has ignored the bulk of my arguments and provided no real evidence against the resolution. He has continually dropped important arguments that were made, repeated his claim the God could do anything and that it canceled out all of my arguments, and finally tried to confuse me by twisting the definition that was agreed upon into me agreeing with the resolution and presupposing the existence of God. Since he has utterly failed to refute the paradox of the stone, please vote Pro.I fail to see why he should have spelling or grammar as well, seeing as he misspelled some basic words (bearing) and left out a number of commas and apostrophes.