I will not contradict myself.
Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... (using the "classical logic" interpretaion)
1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.
2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.
3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.
4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.
5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.
6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.
7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.
8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.
9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words or phrases in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary or Wikipedia at his own discretion, unless the words or phrases were already defined by CON when the question was asked. If the word or phrase cannot be defined using either source, PRO may use any other appropriate online dictionary, wiki, etc.
10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.
11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
I will accept this debate. I will do my best to follow the rules you set forth, and if any misunderstandings occur, I will do my best to justify them.
1) Are you Pro-Life?
2) Do you support President Reagan?
3) What About President Obama?
4) Do you think GWB was better with jobs than Obama?
5) Do you agree with facts that are PROVEN?
6) Do you support separation of church and state?
7) Are you for limited Government? (by this I mean do you believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution)
8) Do you support the legalization of Gay Marriage?
9) Do you believe that if you don't believe in the correct religion you will go to Hell?
10) Do you believe in freedom of religion?
5) Neither answer would be completely correct; I agree with some proven facts, but not with others.
1) Do you think the government should promote morality?
2) Do you support Universal healthcare?
3) Do you support our troops?
4) Are you a patriot?
5) Do you agree that human life is sacred?
6) Will you vote in November?
7) What are your views on foreign policy?
8) What is your view on school vouchers?
9) Do you support regulation of pollution produced by industry?
10) Do you want Obama to fail badly as President? (from now onward)
I will point out any contradictions next round.
1) Sort of; I believe that government should protect its subjects' rights, and in doing so punish some immoral actions, but it should not promote any moraity beyond that.
7) This question is not a Yes/No question; therefore, CON broke Rule #1, and thus automatically lose by Rule #11.
8) This question is not a Yes/No question; therefore, CON broke Rule #1, and thus automatically lose by Rule #11.
Contradictions So Far
In R2 Q7 my opponent said that he believes in strict interpretation of the Constitution (Yes). However, he later in R3 Q8 said he doesn't support legalization of Gay Marriage. Under the 14th amendment, Gays and Lesbians have a civil right to marry. It also has been determined by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, the marriage is a fundamental human right. 
My opponent in R2 Q1 said he is Pro-Life. However, in R3 Q2, he said he doesn't support Universal Healthcare. To refute my opponent's refute my opponent's future rebuttal, Universal HC can be carried out by several ways. One way is by a Single-Payer system, or a totally private system with the poor getting coverage (for example, with vouchers). Either way, he does not favor everybody having healthcare, and since a lack of healthcare can in many cases lead to the death of an individual, he is not Pro-Life. A contradiction.
My opponent in R3 Q4 said he is a patriot. However, in R3 Q10, he said that wants Obama to fail badly as President. It is not patriotic to want your leader to fail. You want what is better for your country, which will obviously need a good President at its head. A clear contradiction.
To Voters and PRO:
1) Do you believe that war is ever justifiable?
2) Do you support school vouchers?
3) Do you support all of our troops that serve our nation? (honorably of course)
4) Do you want to eliminate the Treasury?
5) Do you support the Healthy Forests Initiative?
6) Do you want get rid of nearly all taxes?
7) Do you support the environment?
8) Are you Pro-Government?
9) Do you support a strong infrastructure for the USA to succeed?
10) Do you support the medical and scientific establishments?
1. Gay Marriage
The Fourteenth Amendment only requires "equal protection of the laws."I believe that marriage itself shouldn't be a legal entity; therefore, neither gay nor straight marriage should be recognized by government. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruling doesn't require government recognition to my current knowledge, and besides, I don't believe that Supreme Court decisions are infallible. Finally, even if the Constitution mandated legalization of gay marriage, I could support an amendment against it while still interpreting the Constitution strictly.
2. Universal Healthcare
"Pro-life" indicates opposition to abortion , not a desire to maximize the preservation of all life through any means possible.
I said I'm not a patriot.
10) That would have to depend on the medical and scientific establishments to which you refer. I support some of them, but not all of them.
In R2 Q1, my opponent said he is pro-life, and said in R4 he opposes abortion. In R4 Q3, he said he supports our troops. However, if you think about our women soldiers who are raped by our other soldiers, and you deny them an abortion, to the women soldier it is liked being raped twice, once by another soldier, and second by a ideological pundit. If you support our troops, you would want our raped women soldiers to have the right to an abortion if they desired so.
My opponent said in R4 Q2 he supports school vouchers. In R2 Q6 says he supports separation of church and state. With school vouchers, the government would technically be giving religious institutions funding for religious education. Although religious education is not the main (or only) type of education being given, it is certainly be given. The majority of private schools are religiously-based.
School: an organization that provides instruction
Voucher: a coupon issued by government to a parent or guardian to be used to fund a child's education in either a public or private school
In R3 Q9 my opponent said he supports regulation of pollution produced by industry. However, he doesn't support the environment (R4 Q7). This is not exactly a contradiction, but is very strange nonetheless, and deserves a rebuttal.
In R4 Q8, my opponent says he is pro-government. However, he wants to get rid of nearly all taxes (R4 Q6). However, he supports (many) of the scientific and medical establishments (R4 Q10). Even if he doesn't support them all, he supports some. With very very low taxation (getting rid of nearly all taxes), the scientific and medical establishments wouldn't exist.
The past and current taxpayes invested with their tax money in the scientific and medical establishments (for example, the N.I.H., the Genome project, Manhattan project, the Internet, Center for Disease Control, Clean Water and Clean Air policies, National Weather Service, Food and Drug Safety programs, etc.)
Federal Funds pay for 80% of the basic science research costs in this nation, especially through the institutions I listed above. If you cut nearly all of the funding, you won't have them. However, you are pro government, but against taxes, and for the science and medical establishments, but against taxes. A few contradictions here. 
You may consider my interpretation of "pro-life" to be "narrow," but by Rule #9, I have all the power of defining words and phrases not already defined in the question.
2. Supporting Military
I support the troops in that I want them to survive the war. I don't believe they have the right to kill the baby they carry if they are raped, but I don't see why I can't support them while opposing the particular action of abortion. To say that I am "raping" them again by forbidding them from murdering is actually quite insulting. "Supporting" the troops doesn't not mean wanting them to do whatever they want, especially if it involves murder.
3. School Vouchers
There are various degrees of separation of church and state . I don't believe that providing funding to religious schools by the choice of the student's parents violates anyone's religious rights, and thus don't support a separation of church and state that bans school vouchers going to religious schools as my opponent would like to imply.
My opponent agrees that this is "not exactly a contradiction," so I see no problem here.
I am in favor of a limited government. Such a government would require much fewer taxes than those required by today's government. While I support many scientific and medical establishments, I believe that they should get by on private investment and donations instead of taxpayer dollars. They would not all cease to exist without government. Thus, I simultaneously support a limitation of government and the scientific and medical establishments.
In conclusion, my opponent's supposed "contradictions" involve very limited interpretations of what I think, observing only peculiarities, if even that, in my thinking instead of actual contradictions, even admitting that one of his points is not a contradiction at all. I have not contradicted myself, and I haven't broken any rules. Thus, I am the victor. Vote PRO!
As per the rules I will not introduce any new contradictions this round.
You may be pro-life in the sense you oppose abortion, but since you don't support everybody having access to quality healthcare, you are not pro-life in the full sense of the word.
Women soldiers who are raped by our own soldiers cannot get an abortion because they are not permitted. They are forced to have a pregnancy. I don't think that we should dishonor our female soldiers who are putting their lives on the line. I said it was like being raped again (by a self-righteous ideologue.)
For some parents, whom may be very poor, and decide to go to a religiously affiliated private school, the funding would come from the pockets of other taxpayers, who may be opposed to funding that school (because of religious reasons) but have to nonetheless. So for some, it would violate a separation of church and state.
If there was a very small government, it would not fund scientific and medical institutions. As I said, over 80% of basic science research is funded by the government. Obviously, the private enterprise system would not step in. The N.I.H. pays for the research. I have not seen an infrastructure built by voluntary private enterprises.
The purpose of the above paragraph was to show the unlikely correlation with few/no taxes = support in science and medical institutions.
Plus, he is pro-government, but wants few/no taxes. My opponent left this contradiction (from R4) unattacked.
My opponent contradicted himself a few times. With the issue of honoring our military, he is for forbidding our female soldiers, who put their lives on the line, from getting an abortion. With the government, he supports the scientific and medical establishments, but does not clearly demonstrate how this would survive with few/no taxes. He also is pro-government, but does want few/no taxes. School vouchers can lead to a violation of church and state. And with Pro-life, he opposes abortion, but is NOT pro-life when it comes to living human people who lack healthcare.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|