I will not contradict myself.

I believe that my opponent has contradicted himself more than once already. His answer: "No" to the final question in the last round: "Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything?" is self-contradictory as he has already answered several questions in agreement with the opinions of this great man and I am sure I will have no difficulty compelling him to agree further with Marx in this and subsequent rounds (assuming of course that he does not concede his contradiction and forfeit the rest of the debate.) I would like to point out than in answering no to this question without the kind of further clarification he has given for several other answers my opponent has little room to manoeuvre. He has categorically stated that he doesn't agree with Marx on anything at all. In round 1 my opponent answered "yes" (with no additional provisions) to the question: "Do you think that workers have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions?" To be fair this question should in fact have read "Do you think that workers *should* have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions?" I assume that this is how my opponent interpreted the question as he lists himself 'Pro' to labour unions on his profile, but even if he decides to take the semantic argument of the rights existing, whether or not they are desirable this opinion is still very much in line with Karl Marx's own opinions on the subject. Marx supported and encouraged labour unions (called trade unions in the UK) in many countries, where they existed he approved of them. "The immediate object of Trades Unions was therefore confined to everyday necessities, to expediences for the obstruction of the incessant encroachments of capital, in one word, to questions of wages and time of labour. This activity of the Trades Unions is not only legitimate, it is necessary. It cannot be dispensed with so long as the present system of production lasts. On the contrary, it must be generalised by the formation and the combination of Trades Unions throughout all countries." (Karl Marx - The Poverty Of Philosophy) http://www.workersliberty.org... "Every activity of this class was therefore, important for Marx-activity in which the class got consciousness to move forward. The formation of trade unions and the trade union movement were important steps in the formation of a class, a common class-consciousness. The superior organisation- the political party of the working class could not be formed and expanded in isolation from this practical struggle involving the large mass of workers. That is why the statutes of the International Working Men's Association provided for affiliation of trade unions and other organisations of the working class, along with individual membership." http://cpim.org... There are other contradictions inherent in my opponent's conviction that he does not agree with Marx. Q. If birth is certain to kill the mother but the baby would survive then is abortion justified? A. Yes Karl Marx was well known for his support of women's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, especially in cases where their health would be at risk, I am sure he would agree with my opponent on this one. Q. Do you think the Bible is a good basis for morality? A. Yes There is also strong evidence that at various stages Marx exhibited a lot of respect for the morality of the Bible and that even in his early life: "Marx's writings during this period exhibited a spirit of Christian devotion and a longing for self-sacrifice on behalf of humanity." http://www.britannica.com... Some of his most well-known quotes about religion have been taken out of context and he strongly criticized those who focused on attacking religion. http://www.socialistworker.co.uk... I think plenty of Marx quotes about the negative impact of machinery and over-industrialisation could easily be interpreted as a belief in pollution of at least the "bits and pieces" level too, but will not press anymore on the Marx issue as I think the following has been proved: Pro claims not to agree with Karl Marx on anything but clearly agrees with him on plenty. This is a contradiction. I have chosen to focus on this one contradiction although I believe my opponent has also made others which I will discuss briefly but not elaborate on for now: Supporting the Death Penalty goes against a basic morality set out in the Bible, the commandment: "Thou shall not kill" Ex 20:13. Jesus taught forgiveness as his central principle, if you confessed and repented you should be forgiven. Claiming that the Bible is a good source for morality and supporting the death penalty is a contradiction. Supporting the death penalty is also in direct contradiction of the notion of being Pro-life. You can't be pro life and pro death at the same time. The Bible states that Jesus was a man, born of woman. "The word became flesh" John 1:14 Here is a selection of Christian sites claiming that Jesus was fully human: http://www.desiringgod.org... http://www.ucc.org... http://staticyouth.wordpress.com... Unless none of these are true Christians my opponent has contradicted himself. More questions: 1. Are you sure you don't agree with Karl Marx on anything at all? 2. "Do you think that workers *should* have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions?" 3. Are the listed opinions on the BIG issues on your profile (at the time of me typing this) a true representation of your beliefs and opinions? 4. Is the world round? 5. Was Karl Marx a Marxist? 6. Are you a Marxist? 7.Do Communists seek to abolish personal and private possessions? 8. Do the living have more right to live than the unborn? 9. Does gravity exist? 10. Was the torture and crucifixion of Jesus morally justified? Thankyou.