I ,too, wont contradict myself

*I changed the rules* I realize that the opponent feels he can change the rules, but he quiet simply can't. As the creator of the debate, he issued a challenge, however that does not make him an all-powerful administrator that can change the rules as he pleases. The opponent is not legally allowed to change the rules. Along these lines, the opponent also cannot simply make new rules up whenever he pleases. This would be abusive to me and create a very unfair debate. Therefore, my opponent's assertion that the rule "Contradictions in the comments don't count" is not substantiated and should not be observed. Also, this means that my opponent still has contradicted himself. *I never contradicted myself, I never said two opposites (PROVE IT)* First of all, let's talk about the opponent's definition. His (sourceless) definition says to contradict is to 'affirm the opposite of'. However, according to Merriam Webster, the definition is to affirm the contrary of (contrary means a proposition so related to one another that not both can be true). This is a much more acceptable definition because it comes from a source and can be logically applied. For example, the opposite of black is commonly understood as white. However, if a man said that he is going to get a white car, and got a green car instead, he would still be contradicting his original statement, even if he wasn't doing the exact opposite. So applying this to my opponent's comments in the comment section, we see he contradicts himself. First he says there will be 20 questions per round, and then he says there is will be 20 per debate. This is an obvious contradiction because he says two things that cannot coexist and affirms them both. This is proof of the contradiction that my opponent asked for and proof that I have won today's debate. *You cannot change them yourself, your highness* This statement directly says one thing, and implies another. The words "You cannot change them" says that I can't change the rules, which is pretty obvious in the statement. However, "yourself, your highness" also has a function. 'yourself' means he is saying 'oh contrare, you say I can't change the rules so neither can you'. 'Your highness' is a mockery of me based of his assumption that I wish to change the rules (which I don't). The fact that he would find it mock-able to change the rules means logically that he is against changing the rules himself. However, his very first sentence of this round was "I changed the rules." This statement directly conflicts with his implication that changing the rules was a bad thing that he assumable wouldn't do. So here, we have a contradiction inside the round to match the contradiction outside the round. *Don't try to say that's not really MY definition, therefore [you're] wrong* I didn't simply assert mine was better, but I actually sourced it and backed it up by reasoning and logic, something the opponent has failed to do all debate round. Because of this failure to use logic, my definition supersedes his. *DROPS* My opponent dropped two arguments, meaning he didn't attempt to refute them. Clearly he didn't use anywhere near his 8000 character limit, so he did have the space to refute them, but he simply didn't, perhaps because he agrees. The arguments were: 1) The argument regarding him answering yes/no questions with answers other than yes/no. 2) The argument regarding the question I asked "This statement is a lie". Neither were even mentioned, so because of that they go to me. CONCLUSION My opponent poorly refuted my attacks in a measly paragraph backed by sourceless data and no logic to speak of. He even dropped arguments, not mentioning them at all. I've shows a source where necessary and backed my arguments with plenty of logic, making me the clear cut winner of this debate even right now.