I will not contradict myself.

My opponent's contradictions: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Is there a number that can be considered greater than infinity? ---Yes Is a dictionary a reliable source? ---Sometimes. Not all definitions are applicable to any situation. For example, school does not always refer to fish. Well, I do believe that the definition of "infinity" that would be applicable in this situation is most likely: -The quality or condition of being infinite http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ...And the most applicable definition of infinite would be: -Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value http://www.thefreedictionary.com... So, If a dictionary's applicable definitions are valid, then a number cannot be considered greater than infinity. If a number can be considered greater than infinity, then applicable definitions in a dictionary are not valid. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Can God lift anything? ---Yes Can God lift everything? ---Yes Can God create a stone that he cannot lift? ---Yes God can lift anything and everything, yet he can create a stone that he cannot lift. So, If God can lift anything and everything, then he cannot create a stone that he cannot lift. If God can create a stone that he cannot lift, then he cannot lift anything and everything. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Does banning 'abusable' drugs infringe on one's ability to make decisions regarding their own health?" ---Yes Should people be able to make decisions regarding their own health? ---At the age of responsibility. Does your profile say you are against Drug Legalization? ---Yes Do you agree with all your own positions on the BIG issues and with the religion stated on your profile? ---Yes, assuming that I get to define what the BIG issues to how I interpret them. (I don't see any other way to interpret "Drug Legalization" without contradicting the applicable definitions in the dictionary). Drug Legalization obviously refers to the un-banning of abusable drugs. So, If my opponent believes that abusable drugs should be a decision available to individuals at the age of responsibility, then he would support banning them. If my opponent believes that abusable drgus should be banned, then he believes that individuals at the age of responsibility should not be able to make such decisions regarding their health. As further evidence of contradiction: 5. Is smoking tobacco acceptable at the age of responsibility? ---As long as it does not affect others. 6. Is smoking marijuana acceptable at the age of responsibility? ---As long as it does no harm to others. Should it be legal to smoke marijuana at the age of responsibility? ---As long as it does no harm to others. Should it be legal to use pain relievers when not in pain at the age of responsibility? ---As long as it does no harm to others. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The contradictions are plain as day. However, the rules state that my opponent has the opportunity to "use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over." I'm hoping for the "PRO admits defeat" option.