Diametrically Opposing Statements (Logical Contradictions) Cannot Be Logically Resolved As True

Once again, I must remind my opponent and the readers that this debate is NOT about the Bible. No place in the resolution does it indicate any sort of religious import into this debate. Furthermore, this debate is classified as miscellaneous, not religion. The examples Galiban has offered are as follows: A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father. B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father. I HATE YOU. I LOVE YOU. My opponent's entire argument revolves around adding more qualifiers to the statements to remove them from the realm of contradiction. However, when additional qualifiers are added, they are no longer diametrically opposing statements and are completely irrelevant to this debate. Galiban's burden of proof is to show that "diametrically opposing statements can be logically resolved as true." He as in no way done this. He has merely shown that one can add qualifiers that change the nature of the statements and THEN they can be resolved as true. This does NOT in ANY WAY meet the burden of proof. ************************************************* >> "All of my opponents statements rest on the fact that he TARZAN assigned these statements are polar opposites and cannot be reconciled." My opponent seems to be quite utterly befuddled as to the nature of (A & ~A). >> "I am stating that Tarzan completely ignores the context in which the statements were written." No - context does not matter for opposing statements. If you add qualifiers, they are no longer diametrically opposing statements. >> "Again it is Tarzan that placed them in the proof with the conjunction. Not the Bible and not Galiban. I explained to him and he ignored context." Yet again... context is irrelevant for opposing statements. Add some context and they are no longer opposing. >> "He is assuming the value of punish is the same. On top of that he takes two statements from two different books 40 years apart and places them in one statement and goes "See! Foolish God he is so silly!"" More like examining the terrible logical argument put forth my my opponent and quoted in the first round and saying "See! Foolish Galiban he is so silly!" >> "Everything again shows that He is just plain wrong. He is Dodging the entirety of the argument by attempting to redefine." Excuse me? You don't even address your own argument, and immediately start adding qualifiers you are not permitted to add. This debate is about the logical argument you posted, NOT what you meant to post. It is in no way my fault that your logic in the first round is egregiously flawed. Again - YOU are trying to redefine terms, NOT me. >> "Now my opponent admits that the two statements can be resolved as true but must be rewritten with a new code. Logical implications must be accounted for. This is exactly what I did to his (A & ~A)" Once again, Galiban demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the concept. If "I hate you" and "I love you" really means "I hate father" and "I love mother" then the logical argument IS different. But if nobody states that "you" is referring to two different individuals, then the statements are diametrically opposing and irreconcilable. >> "He holds to his argument because he felt the Bible wrote it poorly? Silly Bible, it wrote it 40 years apart in two different books to two different audiences." How many times must I restate that this is NOT ABOUT THE BIBLE?? >> "Theresa went home one day and her father[F] told her to do chores[C] and she rebuked him saying to him "I hate father [H]." She then went into the living room and her mother[M] whispers "Don't worry, I'll do your chores. [I]" the teenage girl whispers back "I love mother.[L]"" Sigh. Consider: {[(F -> C) -> H] & [(M -> I) -> L]} F M ------------------ :. (H & L) When we have a paragraph, it is quite easy to construct a proper logical argument. Once again, we are talking about Galiban's egregiously flawed premises in the argument from Round 1. >> "That was stating the context, which was already have shown you rejected. Shush." Wonderful - my opponent tries to hide the fact that he is NOT addressing the resolution. >> "Tarzan admits that when a logical inconsistency is met it must be written so it is logically consistent." I did no such thing. When a logical inconsistency is met as a conclusion of an argument, one of the premises is flawed. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. >> "I also DISAGREE that this debate is not about the Bible." You may disagree all you want. However, you are still wrong. If this debate were about the Bible, I would have illustrated the dozens of examples of Biblical inconsistencies. This debate is about LOGIC. >> "To fully understand why my code is accurate we must come to understand some inherent concepts within the Bible to show that there is more information that Tarzan is IGNORING." How many times must I iterate for you that your original argument CONTAINS NO CONTEXT. >> "Again I point to my proof above is the only proof between the two that is taking into context. Or, as Tarzan redefines it, "logical implications"." I redefined nothing. I showed that context introduces additional logical parameters - parameters MISSING from your original argument. >> "I love how he redefines context as logical implications just to avoid losing the debate. Again pointing to Academic dishonesty." Wow. ************************************************ >> "He is not denying the clear logic of my proposition, which everyone understands" This is his proposition: (((E ->D)^(E->C))->(A . B)) A = God punishes the children for the sins of the father. B = God does not punish the children for the sins of the father. C = God does not allow a child to be substituted in the rape charge of the father. D = the children of the nation are punished for the national decisions. E = God's Justice. There is no modicum of logic in this proposition. Consider it written out: Galiban : If God is just, then the children of a nation are punished for national decisions and if God is just, God does not allow a child to be substituted in the rape charge of the father. Therefore, God punishes the children for the sins of the father and God does not punish children for the sins of the father. This obviously makes no sense at all. **************************************** Once again, I remind the readers and my opponent that this debate is not about the Bible. The only consideration in this debate is thus: Can (A & ~A) be logically reconciled as true? The answer to this is necessarily "NO." My opponent has in no way fulfilled his burden of proof in this debate and has largely ignored the resolution. His argument focuses on adding parameters to his original statements so they are no longer (A & ~A) but rather something more like (A & B). However, even if he does this, he cannot make any more arguments about that pairing in this debate because they are no longer diametrically opposing statements and this debate deals with only diametrically opposing statements. Once again - my opponent must show that "diametrically opposing statements (logical contradictions) can be logically resolved as true." He has not done this and cannot. AFFIRMED.