The following sentence is True. The preceding sentence is False.

:) Now then, on to the good stuff. 1. The Impossible Burden, and the Change of Framework a. While Con argues that the burden is indeed impossible, I accepted that burden upon entering into the debate. However, his math example is hardly analogous to today's situation. As I've argued, it's completely within my right as the contender to contest the parameters set by my opponent; furthermore, my contention of the aforementioned framework is entirely justified, as my opponent himself admits the impossibility of the burden imposed on Pro; clearly the "given" framework, in its impossibility, is unfair to Pro, and warrants change. b. Under Pro's proposed framework, an answer of "neither" is perfectly acceptable, since, due to the nature of the infinitely paradoxical resolution, one can hardly argue these statements to be definitively "true" or "false". On that point, I'd like to remind the voters that Con completely drops my explanation of his false dichotomy (or either-or fallacy, as some would call it) – this further justifies my answer of "neither", considering that the answer to my opponent's request is no longer limited to "true" or "false". c. Also notice that, while my opponent attacks my answer of "neither" in response to his question, Con's Round 1 argument is stated as thus: "I believe there is no way to tell whether either of these sentences are true or false when in combination with one another. " When taken to its most basic form, my opponent is saying that the resolution is neither true nor false; just because I've turned this exact argument on him does not mean that it is suddenly unacceptable. 2. The Meaning of "Contradiction" a. Con provides a definition of contradictory, and says that, because I try to answer an impossible question, contradictions must therefore exist in reality, as I contradict myself. There's an important point of clarification, however. By changing the framework, we change the circumstances under which I am answering the question, meaning that, under this new logic, there is now a fair chance to answer. I am clearly not contradicting myself. b. Con actually asserts that contradictions can exist in reality. Obviously, nothing is further from the truth. One could not say, for example, "Global warming exists, and global warming does not exist", nor could one say "This statement is true, and this statement is false". Clearly, the condition of such assertions, being self-contradictory, necessitates their nonexistence as truth in reality, and so statements like that of the resolution could be considered false, in a way, due to their self-contradictory nature. In closing, you can vote on three things today. 1. Con admits that the framework of the debate was inherently impossible for Pro to debate under, which justifies Pro's changing of the parameters to make the debate fair to both sides, especially considering that Con himself made the "neither" argument in Round 1. 2. Con fails to address the explanation of the false dichotomy inherent in his position. 3. Even excluding all other arguments, Pro clearly proves the nonexistence of contradictions in reality, thereby proving that the resolution, due to its self-contradictory nature, is false, since contradictions can never exist as objective truths.