Let me introduce you toThe Russell Paradox:

                                                       R = { X : X is not an element X}

The are like containers like the set natural numbers N={1,2,3,...}here 2 is an element (i.e. member) of the set N but b is not an element of N. So Russell's set is set all sets that are not members of themselves.  This simple set leads to a paradox when ask whether the Russell set R is, or is a set that contains itself:

If we claim that R Is a member of itself R! Then acording to defintion of what is inside R we must conclude R is not a member of itself.

But if start with claim that R is not member of itself! The acording its definition it beongs in the set.

When mathematicians saw this they believe that there was fallacy in cantorial set and tried to replace it with Axiomatic set theory. But problems started pop up in axiomatic set theory as well. My claim is that Cantorial Set Theory was correct and paradox is not a fallacy. I claim that the paradox is necessary to prevent endless inclusion making a paradoxical set the perfect comtainment.  

HERE IS THE CHALLENGE PROVE THAT THIS IDEA OF MINE IS SIMPLE WRONG!!!

THERE IS ONLY ONE RULE OF THE DEBATE YOU MUST FOCUS ON THE PROBLEM; JUST LIKE IT A QUESTION OA TEST.