I will not contradict myself

Was very stimulating trying to come up with all these strategies. The 4 contradictions presented last round seem to be what this will be decided on. I'll spend this round explaining why they are true contradictions. I'll try to keep it as short as possible as to not bore the readers. I'd like to start by noting that Pro didn't contest my argument that not answering a question is grounds to vote Con. Keep this in mind as you read the next point. Contradiction 1. Pro starts by saying that he didn't contradict himself because he "never answered my opponent's supposed first question". So vote Con right here, since he didn't answer my question which he has conceded is gronds for a loss. Pro then claims the first question I referenced wasn't actually a question, but a clarification. First, how is the quote "this round only refers to R1, right? " not a question? As I pointed out last round, it ends with a question mark and asks for an explanation, which grammatically makes it a question. But common sense should tell you this as well. Furthermore, its actually not just a clarification. I planned this contradiction from the start. I knew my opponent wouldn't actually try and prevent me from asking questions outside of R1. I simply made my first paragraph up in order to disguise the question I put in it. My opponent thinks it wasn't actually a straight-forward question. Once again, the text of it is " this round only refers to R1, right? ". That seems pretty simple and straight forward to me. Contradiction 2. I guess I was being too optimistic. I was hoping my opponent would give me a little credit for the innovative idea, but instead he asked for me to lose conduct :/Pro runs the same argument that my hidden question wasn't straight-forward. What does straight-forward even mean? I'd say that its meant to prevent questions that are really complicated and not easy to understand. For instance, "How do epistemic moral calculii objectively quantify degenerative magnitudinal regressions? " probably fits the bill we would consider as not a straight-forward question because its overly complcated. In contrast, the hidden question I asked, which was "Did you see this question" is incredibly easy to understand and answer, making it fairly "straight-forward". Remember that its accepted that him not answering a question whatsoever wins me the round. He did not answer the question (as planned of course). As such, vote Con! *Insert evil laugh here*Contradiction 3. The rule my opponent used is "Only 10 questions per round". It doesn't specify that they have to be from me, so I purposely made him ask me multiple questions as to put him over the limit of his own rule. So it doesn't matter if I asked the questions or he did, nor does it matter if he was just quoting me. There were still 13 total questions in my opponent's round 4, which contradicts his rule. Again, I'm not coming up with this stuff just now, this was the idea the whole time. .. .He also accuses me of trying to get a "cheap win". If that were true, I would have waited until this round to post all 6 of my contradictions, so my opponent couldn't respond. But I gave him chances to defend all of my arguments, so I feel I'm being fair. Besides, i'm just trying to come up with unique ideas to draw contradictions. I don't think I should be penalized for not using tactics that everyone else has already used. Finally, he claims that violating a rule isn't a contradiction. But if somethign says "only 10 Q's per round" and he gives 13, that is contradicting the rule he created, thus turning it into a contradiction onto himself. Contradiction 4. Pro suggests that he wouldn't bury the survivors of a plane crash because he has a "lack of desire". Well why would he have a lack of desire to bury people alive? Lol, its probably because he considers it a morally wrong thing to do, as does any sane person, which indicates that he's looking for the Utilitarian benefit of not killing alive people. This answers the correlation - causation argument because the reason for him not burying the survivors is obvious. With all that being said, it shouldn't be difficult to vote on any of these arguments. I've tried to make these points as clear as possible.