My Opponent Will Contradict Himself

It seems as if he concedes that I had a valid loophole for his second set of 5 questions. His first set wasn't intended to set me up (it was just filler); I didn't contradict myself there. That means that if I can provide a valid loophole with regards to Pro's last set of 5 questions, I will win the debate as I never contradicted myself in this game. Responding To Pro's QuestionsQuestion 1 "1. Will you not answer this question with a yes? " No---I'll reform the question so it is less confusing:"1. Will you answer this question with a no? "Now, I answered "no" to the question above. That equates to me saying:"No, I will answer this question with a no" This is only contradictory if by "this question" we mean the question "will you answer this question with a no" and not some future question. However, logically, we must be talking about some unknown future question with regards to me answering "will you answer this question with a no? ", because as I answer "no, I will answer this question with a no", it is in terms of a future question as I talking about a question I WILL be answering. However, as I answered "no", it was true that:"I am answering this question" (if we are discussing Question 1)It was false that: "I will answer this question" (if we are discussing Question 1)Therefore, when my opponent says "this question", the only logical conclusion is that it refers to some future question, as I necessarily have to answer the question in a way which speaks about a question that WILL be answered! Since my opponent's interpretation of "this question" leads to the contradictions he mentioned, and the one I just mentioned, then the only logical interpretation is that "this question" must be that we are speaking about some future question. "2. Do you like mangos? "No"3. Was this debate mildly entertaining? " Yes "4. Can you ride a unicycle? "No "5. Do you dislike me because of this stupid debate? "No In Conclusion With Regards To Question 1My opponent's interpretation of "this question" leads to contradictions (the ones he mentioned, and the one I mentioned regarding answering a question that I will answer). However, that is not me contradicting myself, that is my opponent's interpretation of the "this question" part of Q1 which is leading to the contradictions. I interpreted "this question" in a way which doesn't lead to a contradiction, and it is necessarily the only valid way to interpret "this question". Basically, by "this question", we must be talking about some future question, as I necessarily have to answer the question in terms of a question that WILL be asked. Since this future question has not been specified, I couldn't have contradicted myself with regards to it. I also didn't contradict myself by answering "no" to my opponent's question, as the only reasonable way to interpret the terms "this question" within the question, pertain to some hypothetical future question. I did not contradict myself once in the debate, because when I answered "no" to Q1 in his last round, I answered "no" pertaining to my interpretation of Q1, which clearly avoids the contradiction mentioned by Pro. My loophole here is clever, because I show that there is only one reasonable way to interpret his question, and that it instantly takes me out of contradicting myself, and the loophole shows that it is my opponent's interpretation of his question which leads to contradictions, not my answer. I didn't contradict myself.