Cate vs Doge

Rule BreakingMy opponent has no proof that I have broken any rules. He is not allowed to say "go look at my albums! ", which is most definitely not allowed in any sort of debate setting. The voters are only allowed to vote on content that is within the debate or has been linked out of the debate (validity of sources, looking at pictures, etc). My opponent has not done this, thus the voters are not able to vote based on his accusations of me breaking any rules whatsoever. With that aside, I am not currently breaking any rules at the time of writing this response. I have a picture of the Venetian Doge Lodovico Manin, who has been proved to be a Doge in all respects (all respects that matter to authoritative sources, that is). Closing StatementMy opponent has offered no reasons why cate is of superior quality to doge. Even if we accepted his unreasonable definitions (which is absurd, so many authoritative sources say otherwise to his definitions), he has not fulfilled his part of the burden at all. He was meant to prove why cate (a delicacy, may I remind you) is of superior quality to that of a doge, and all that he has said is that a cat is cooler or has better abilities. However, I have proven that because doges are humans, they possess free will, and are able to make a large impact on society that is beneficial for the people. This is intrinsic quality to humanity. I have also proven that cates, while I do concede they solve some peoples' hunger, they do not do it for the people that need their hunger solved or do they do it enough to make a difference in the world. This means that they have a very small amount of quality, and the amount that a doge has severely outweighs this. If my opponent set dead to his definitions, that he may be able to do, he still has not proven why a cate is better than a doge within his own definitions. We may argue from different definitions, but arguments must be made that uphold the burden regardless of disagreements of semantics. I have successfully proved with many many authoritative sources that a doge is a magistrate from Genoa or Venice, and that a cate is a delicacy or a choice food. My opponent, on the other hand uses very questionable sources in an attempt to find at least someone that agrees that a doge is some abstract thought, and I have already disproven the validity of his sources (see: Obama definition). Now, my definitions are clearly more well sourced, and thus are more believable and should be used in this debate. .. however, my opponent has been fighting these definitions this entire time without any real reason. My opponent claims that because he set this debate in the funny category, doge is defined as a meme. .. this is fallacious, because this is a serious error in reasoning. It is not up to me to make sure you placed this in the right category. As I said, if someone makes a gay marriage debate and puts it in the "technology" category, one cannot assume that they must only use technological arguments. That would be absurd, so my opponent's claims are unjustified. I have proven that a doge is superior (as stated earlier), and all of my arguments are dropped over a battle of semantics. My opponent has made no actual constructive arguments, nor has he actually refuted them adequately, thus I should win the 'arguments' points. My opponent has made unfair rules and has even gone so far as to say "I completely regret ever making this debate thanks to you", which is completely rude to say to a debater. This cannot be tolerated in an objective environment such as DDO, thus I believe I should be able to receive the 'conduct' point. I have used many authoritative sources in my arguments, and all of these are completely valid - either by truth (they are truly valid), or by them being dropped by my opponent. He has used very questionable sources (Urban Dictionary, really? Exceptionally questionable and proven to be false), thus I believe I should win the 'sources' points.