I will not contradict myself

Thaddeus accidentally forfeited the last round, so here are his answers as posted in the comments section. I've resisted the urge to cheat by editing them. 1. Can light reflect off something that is not solid? Yes 2. "Red can be blue", do you agree? No. The wavelength that a wave of light has, has an objective value. A wave cannot have two different values at once. 3. "Right can be wrong", do you agree? The political right can be =D But right (as the opposite of wrong) can't be wrong. 4. Are you a liberal? Yes (to a certain extent) 5. Are you a democrat? Yes, I believe democracy is the best political system we are aware of. 6. Do you ever leave the house? Yes 7. Do you have no feelings about living in Kent, one way or the other? Sometimes. 8. Are all living beings conscious? I don't know. I am not "all living beings" 9. You are driving a bus that you cannot allow to slow down without killing yourself (as in the movie Speed) and you come to a fork in the road, you see that one route leads off the edge of a cliff and the other doesn't and seems safe. Do you take the safe route? Yes. 10. Do dogs get sad? I don't know, they appea to have that emotional capacity, but I am not a dog so I wouldn't no for certain. Thaddeus has contradicted himself numerous times in this debate While many of these are clear contradictions, some are merely implied contradictions, that can be logically inferred from Thad's statements. I will present five of each type. These are just the ones I spotted, there may well be many more. Clear contradictions: (Where there is an explicit logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.) 1. In R2, Thaddeus answered "no" to the question: "Does your DDO profile accurately reflect your personal information and opinions?" However he contradicts this with answers to other questions which are accurately reflected by his profile. http://www.debate.org... For example, he confirms that he is in the military, that he lives in Kent etc. Note that the issue is not that he contradicts his profile but that he claims it doesn't reflect his personal information accurately when it clearly does to a certain extent. Although relevant information is on his profile, the contradiction is internal to the debate. The fact that this is the only R2 answer that Thad gives a straight yes/no to is telling. In every other answer here, he has clearly differentiated between the absolute and the partial ("most of the time" etc.), Since he didn't qualify this answer by saying his profile reflected only some of his information, it is clear that he is saying none of the information is true, which he then contradicts by confirming that some of it is in his other answers. 2. In the same answer, Thad claims that "any statement made here which contradicts information on my profile is not a valid contradiction." In his R3, he contradicts this by confirming that "a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions" is always contradictory. Even if a contradiction does not apply to this game/debate, it still exists as a valid contradiction. 3. In his 7th answer in R2, Thad claims he is a "Libertarian". Note the use of capitals. Now anyone who has strong beliefs in personal liberties might describe themselves as a libertarian, but only a member of the Libertarian Party would describe themselves as a Libertarian. In the same way I might say I am a socialist, but I am not in any Socialist party, so I am not a Socialist and there are many libertarians on this site, but few Libertarians. Thad demonstrates his understanding of the distinction implicit in this use of capitalisation in his last round of answers, he doesn't infer the Democrats from Q5, nor any Liberal party from Q4. This statement of being a Libertarian contradicts his R3 answer that he is "not officially" a member of any political party. 4. In his last set of answers Thad says that Red cannot be blue, however in answering another question he admits that dogs "appear to have that emotional capacity" to get sad. Since he can believe that dogs get sad, it is contradictory to insist that my dog Red http://www.debate.org... cannot be blue. http://www.usingenglish.com... 5. Also in that final set of answers copied from the comments section and pasted above, Thaddeus clearly claims that as right is the opposite of wrong, it can never be wrong. Careful to cover his back, Thaddeus mentions politics, showing that he is referring to right only in the sense of being correct, as well of course as the standard directional sense of the word. As we all know, left can sometimes be a better choice than right, making right wrong. Thaddeus apparently knows this as well, indicating that if driving a runaway bus he would not take a turning that led over the edge of a cliff no matter which direction it lay (he is deathly afraid of death after all). Thaddeus clearly believes that right can sometimes be wrong, despite his assertions to the contrary. Implied contradictions: (Where a contradiction may not seem explicit, but can be logically inferred.) 1. In R2 Thaddeus says "I was not christened that" when discussing his name, this strongly implies that he was Christened by some other name, else he would not mention it. In the same round he claims he is "not familiar enough with the bible and the christian faith to say for certain" whether they prescribe good moral values. The idea that he would know so little of the faith he was baptised in to seems contradictory to me. 2. In R3 Thaddeus confesses to a crippling fear of death, one that is so intense that he would rather stay alive being hideously tortured for many years than be killed instantly. One would logically infer from this that the everyday hazards of the modern world would discourage Thad from ever leaving his residence. Apparently not, his answers in R3 and also in the last set confirm that not only does he in fact leave his house but he is also a member of the military and leads a far from peaceful life. This surely contradicts the extent of the fear of death that he describes. 3. Also in R3, Thad reveals a gaping hole in his knowledge of basic physics, confessing he has no comprehension of the difference between reflection and refraction. This level of scientific naivety however, does not seem to prevent him from confidently explaining the nature of one of these processes on more than one occasion. I call contradiction. 4. In his final answer of the debate, Thaddeus says "I wouldn't no for certain". Since this does not make grammatical sense (there being no verb "to no"), we must attempt to logically infer what Thad means here. He has already answered the question "I don't know" which demonstrates that he has no difficulty spelling the word "know" so this couldn't possibly be a simple spelling error. The only logical conclusion is that Thaddeus is using some unusual idiomatic version of the word "no" which can surely only mean something like "reply in the negative". Thaddeus is saying he certainly wouldn't say "no", ever, or so it would seem. This would clearly contradict the numerous times he has said "no" in this debate. 5. Lastly, it s somewhat surprising to see that Thad's forfeit of a round does not directly contradict the rules he laid out. However I think a contradiction can still be logically inferred from this as he set out to post in every round and then didn't. Over to you Thaddeus.