If Logical-Master answers all of his opponent's questions, he probably won't contradict himself

Alright. I'm gonna have to go all out if I wanna win this debate. Here goes! [b][color=red]First question for the round: The one who will answer the question is a different person, I.e., not the LM that created this debate?[/color][/b] Like I said:In terms of what it [i]seems[/i] we are talking about. We are talking about the matter of personal identity and I've claimed that it is constantly being replaced. Thus, to answer my opponent's question in that light, no as this vessel's personal identity is not the one it had at the previous instance in time. In fact, looking at it from that light, having a different personal identity each time "time itself" moves forward would render it impossible for there to be a contradiction as it would be the different personal identity which simply possesses an idea or experience different from the previous personal identity. Now, ignoring that light (as in we are considering the vessel known as Logical-Master), there is no different person (or rather vessel). Logical-Master (the vessel) is present right now and was present at the beginning of the debate. [b][blue] Second question, you then hold that the entirety of humanity is only capable of perceiving (seeing in perspective) one shade?[/blue][/b] Since my opponent is referring to shade (in the context used in my profile), I will answer based on that context. My answer is no: Humanity if capable of perceiving many shades. I am capable (as in, it is possible) of perceiving other shades as well. It's just that I perceive the world as gray at this particular point in time based on prior experiences. :D [b][green] I think it sufficiently clear what you mean by "grouped together in the form of a book," from your example of the Bible.[/green][/b] No, I'm afraid it's not that clear at all. My opponent should have asked a followup question. Without one, we are left with multiple possibilities in regards to what I could have meant by my example of the Bible. As for the third question, my answer is yes, depending on what my opponent means by "separately" [b] In regards to what is being figured, i.e., what overching point/points is/are illustrated with what devices. That is the relevant sense.[/b] [color=orange] You would be correct, but particular terms refers to a systematic statement of what those degrees are, and since we're talking an ideology, not a loose set of issues, what overarching principles it is derived from. Count that as fourth question this round if you please.[/color] Ah, I'm not sure what overarching principles it is derived from. [color=green]Should someone assert something without providing evidence when if they know it to be true it is of a nature that the evidence can be acquired by them with very little effort? [/color] Sure, if that is what makes them content. [color=yellow][b] In any finite set x with n terms defined for all time, any person fitting the criterion of set x is one of the best n x-set-members of all time.[/b][/yellow]Hmm. To be honest, I'd be lying if I said the answer to this question was true or false. Truth be told: I don't know the answer as I'm not quite sure what the statement is suggesting. [color=blue][b]Seventh question: Is the answer to the above something so obvious you could figure it out if I addressed you at any given time in the past 3 years with it?[/b][/color]No. It's not obvious (to me). Although if my opponent had addressed at a CERTAIN point in time during the last 3 years and we had discussed this statement (so that I actually may be sure on what he is talking about), then probably. [color=purple][b] Eighth question: Do you ignore things obvious to you when you go about your daily life, or act on them as befits a logical Master?[/b][[/color] Both (more or less). [color=red][b] Ninth question: Should people give themselves names that they don't live up to?[/b][/color] I don't see the problem with it. In any case, just so I won't get "raped" by any comments which I've made in the past, I'm gonna pull out my trap card and remind YOU ALL (the audience) of the fact that there are many forms of communication that exist past speech and text. We must keep in mind that statements which are made in the past also include non verbal communication in that they are statements made to befit that point in time. As has already been insisted, time moves forward, thus it is unreasonable to hold one to a statement which may have been made long in the past. It should be clarified on whether or not one still abides by what they claimed in the past before proceeding further. My opponent's case fails from that front and anything which he tries to dig up from the past shall not help him because of this.