I will not break a rule

The probable loser of this debate will now state his rebuttals to violations. The probable loser of this debate says that his arguments defending his rule #14 stand because my opponent stated that I can not limit his ability. He still has provided no evidence that the probable loser of this debate's rule contradicted his rule. The only thing that the probable loser of this debate’s rule did to Pro was make it slightly harder to express that ability. One way to follow the probable loser of this debate’s rule #16 would be to simply add one conjugated verb to the end of your post. This also does not violate any of the rules posted from the viewpoint of the probable loser of the debate. The probable loser of this debate would be violating rule #11 only if the probable loser of the debate told Pro what _not_ to type. In response to the stated violation of rule #18 the probable loser of this debate agrees with Pro about the format of haikus. The probable loser of this debate also brings up the point that when the rule was made the probable loser of the debate had 12 rules left to formulate. This means that 8 of the probable loser of this debate's twelve need to be in haiku format. The probable loser of the debate can not have possibly violated that rule yet as the probable loser of this debate has only had the opportunity to post 3 rules. The probable loser of this debate says that the probable loser of this debate never said that you violated the probable loser of the debate’s rule #14, only that you had followed almost universally without any prompting, adding evidence against your claim that the probable loser of the debate violated rule #11. The probable loser of this debate will now state violations made by Pro to the possible loser of this debate’s rules. The second line in rule #23 contains possible violations to the probable loser of the debate's rules. In this statement he either falsely refers to the probable loser of the debate as the probable winner of this debate, violating rule #22, or this rule applies to him as the probable loser of this debate argues that if the probable loser of the debate is the probable loser then in this context the probable winner would be Pro and this rule applies to his round 4 post. The following statements are the probable loser of the debate's arguments against proposed rules #23, #24 and #25. In the probable loser of this debate's opponent's rule #23 he states that the probable loser of this debate must compliment him three times. The probable loser of this debate found that that compliment contains the word that is represented by the first letter of the alphabet of the English language. This violated Pro's previous rule #19 an the probable loser of this debate is therefore unable to comply with this new rule. The probable loser of this debate states that the rules #24 and #25 mentioned above are in violation of foundation rule #4. Even the fact that the probable loser of this debate personally wants marijuana to be given to all species or animal, including iguanas, that is neither making rules or discussing the violation of the rules. The same applies to giving the probable loser of this debate's opponent compliments. This concludes the discussion portion of the probable loser of this debate's round 3 post, the probable loser of this debate will now move on and give three more rules. 26.) The probable loser of the debate states that Pro can no longer post rules that restrict how the probable loser of the debate types. 27.) Pro cannot protect Himself from any new rules Dictating Writing 28.) Pro must henceforth use Alliteration in five Of his future rules