the Percy Jackson movie sucks

It seems that instead of actually engaging in a discussion, my opponent has decided to shift the goalposts on me. Instead of debating about whether or not The Lightning Thief was a good movie, he decided that he wanted to debate whether or not it was a good film adaptation from the book to the movie instead. There's two problems with him taking this approach.1. It directly conflicts with the wording of the resolution. The wording literally says "The Percy Jackson MOVIE sucks". This ties into the point I made about how the resolution talks specifically about the movie and not the book-to-movie relationship. If my opponent had wanted to debate how well the movie fit the plot of the book, he should've worded his resolution to fit accordingly. Combine this with the fact that he didn't respond to my point about how the resolution voids out this kind of discussion, and the entirety of his case is dropped right off the bat. With no way to uphold his burden of proof, it's an instant negative vote.2. Even if the wording of the resolution was spot-on, he didn't bring this up before the debate actually began. The only place he ironed this out was in his actual case, and not in the rules and conditions where a nugget of information like this should've been. This makes it not an actual rule to follow, but an argument he is trying to make. Seeing as how I already refuted this idea via use of the wording of the resolution, it takes us back to the actual topic up for the debate. The final nail in the coffin comes from what he posted in Round One, which is "So, the arguement is, is this a good film. " You heard him right: not a good book adaptation, a good film. That's independent of the book ladies and gents. As such, let's get back down to the substance of the debate. Extend my first point which is talking about how even if he's right and the book doesn't line up with the movie at all and vice versa, that doesn't automatically disqualify the movie from being good or automatically making it bad. He doesn't respond to it at all except to say "Oh hey, I probably should get something else to say that it's bad aside from it doesn't fit the book" before going on to rant how it doesn't follow the book a little more. This is a game-over mistake on my opponnent's part because with this unrefuted, his entire case gets dropped because even if it's true, it doesn't matter since it doesn't make it a bad movie. Then you can extend my second point about how no movie can actually be a "bad" movie since the entire concepts of good and bad are subjective. He completely misinterprets this argument. He responds by saying that "Even so, it has to be actually good to appeal to your tastes. " The problem with this response is that a) it completely misses what I'm actually talking about since if good and bad are subjective, there can be no "good" in an objective sense and b) something can be bad yet still appeal to your tastes. For example, the video game "Lollipop Chainsaw" is a really bad game, yet it appeals to my tastes because it's a zombie-fighting game and the main character is a hot blonde chick. It's bad, yet it appeals to my tastes. This means that my second point goes virtually unrefuted, and the poor responses put against it have been refuted, This is the final nail in the coffin for my opponent because if good and bad are subjective, then there isn't an objective sense under which the movie can "suck", thus making it impossible to prove that it does. This is an automatic negative vote.