anything you want

Once again con falsely stated that : "My opponent claims that my clearly logical assertion about hermit crabs is false because really hermit crabs are not a combination of hermits and crabs but rather "The animals in nature actually must live in groups and or EXTREMELY sociable, or they will die of depression,. The name hermit crab is a compound name where "Hermit" is the adjective used to describe the species "Crab". However we can see but the law of non-contradiction that this cannot be true". However IF Hermit crabs are extremely sociable than they should be called "social crabs" but since hermits are by definition not social then by the law of non-contradiction they cannot be both hermits and social. This tells us one of two things either A) my opponent is talking about a totally different "social crab", in such a case my opponent would have failed to demonstrate that hermit crabs live longer than a year as needed by his BOP, OR, B) my initial observation about this non-existent creature stands in which case again my opponent would have failed to fufiled his BOP". I think Con is trying to avoid the fact that i prooved his first and second contention WRONG. As i explained before (and will have to explain again because of Con's failure to read and comprehend my argument correctly), The reosons that hermit crabs are called "Hermit Crabs" is because they live in ONE shell. Not because they are not sociable. Con says that this debate is about using "Logic" to support your arguments, but what is the point if Con doesen't use "Logic" well enough to comprehend the name of the species. I AGAIN have prooved his first contention wrong, So because he IS wrong, His second contention : "I am always right" is ALSO wrong. He also said that because he knows better he wouldn't say "Water is a solid". Well if Con was truly ALWAYS right like he said he was, he wouldn't say this. So basically Con just disprooved himself and saved me the burdon of prooving him wrong once AGAIN. Also Con said that My sources were just "a hell lot of sites" well, if Con REALLY read my debate clearly, i REALLY said "Acoording to HERMIT-CRABS.COM and Wikapedia, and a hell lot of other sites i didn't have time to write down, hermit crabs live for more than one year. That is a fact of nature and science and you can't alter it." Con MIS-quoted my speech wich Angered me ALOT. I listed two sites that are valid, and Con (probably to brush of the weight of the evidence off his shoulders) misquoted me so that The people reading this debate would get my argument wrong. I said that "a hell of other sites" because i REALLY didn't have time to write them them down. So Con (intentianolly or not) cheated by mis-quoting me. So i will post video and photo evidence of the "hermit crab" to further disproove con. http://www.youtube.com... This video link wil disproove ALL of con's contention's FOR me. Here is another one just incase con ends up Mis comprehending the other one like he did my argument: http://www.youtube.com... and http://www.youtube.com... So i DISPROOVED Con multiple times throughout this debate, wich makes me the CLEAR winner. Not only is there video evidence of the species : disprooves first contention, that evidence eliminates his second contention AND his wholea rgument. So i clearly Won. Vote Pro. ON the first video if you start watching at 2:00 it prooves they are social