Cate vs Doge

My opponent defines a term that is not known widely in the English language after I have already given a great definition from Google itself. I ask the voter, is a website such as "the urban dictionary" more reliable than the mass company Google? If we look onto the site of the Urban Dictionary, we find that Obama is defined as "[t]he Messiah for brain-dead Democrats". This is obviously not the definition of Obama, and we cannot seriously think that this source is valid, and by extension any of the definitions are valid. When we look at Google, we do not find a definition for Obama, because he is a person that cannot be perfectly described. Obviously this is much more reasonable than calling him a Messiah for brain-dead Democrats. Looking into the last round, I provided nine total authoritative sources that define Doge as the chief magistrate of Venice or Genoa, and six to prove that a cate is a choice food or a delicacy. This is 15 more authoritative sources than my opponent employs to define these words, and we must use these definitions since the debate has already gone this far.Regardless of what category this debate is in, we must debate the resolution based on the resolution alone; not outside factors. We cannot put a gay marriage debate in the "technology" area and expect only technological arguments, that is absurd. It was my thinking that you simply put this in the wrong category. It is not my burden to correct what category you put your debates in.My opponent further uses Google's dictionary, which he previously shrugged off. This is hypocrisy at its finest - he has declared that the Google definition does not satisfy his needs and that we should not use it... only to use it later to define meme. This is criminally absurd, and I ask the voter to seriously think about what he is doing here. He is throwing out all of his objections, and effectively conceding them!In this debate, we are going to be arguing that one physical object is better than a physical object. My opponent's concerns that Cate and Doge are not alike enough to debate about are unfounded - they are both in the same category (physical object) and thus can be debated. Similarly to a "waffles v. pancakes" debate, those are both in the food category (a category within the physical object one), and they can be debated. This claim of my opponent is not founded in logic.Regardless if my opponent capitalised Cate and Doge or not it does not matter. I have interpreted this as a grammatical mistake when I first looked at the debate, and I accepted thinking this. It is not up to me for you to properly capitalise the correct words. That would be an insanely huge burden for me, and is not conceivable in a debate, for this is not your English class.I reject ALL definitions brought forward by my opponent because they are unfounded. If he wished to use them, then he should have defined them in the first round, not THIS FAR in the debate.Note: with the correct definition of doge (corroborated by 9 sources), I have the profile picture of a doge, thus not breaking rule 1. Even if I did not, there was no penalty laid out in the rules for breaking the rules, and you cannot impose any penalties this late in the debate.With this out of the way, let us get into some good ol' rebuttals.Cate missilesMy opponent makes a bare assertion that because some cat (that is not a cate, but rather a cat, per definition) can guide missiles the cate is supreme to a doge. Without any sort of evidence to back this claim up, or any reasoning why this upholds the resolution at hand (that a CATE is better than a DOGE, not that a cat is better than a dog). He just says that "Cate [sic] is capable of using high tech laser [sic] guided missile launching systems making Cate [sic] incredibly advanced and intelligent", yet he does not offer any reasoning on how this makes cate (not this cat, rather cate. Let me remind you, a cate is a delicacy) is superior in quality to doge.This entire point is effectively void because of a lack of reasoning, proof, impact, or ties to the resolution.Cate v. DogesMy opponent is referring to a picture that *never loaded* as his source for saying that there was a "fight between [a] Cate and several Doges." He does not explain how this relates to the resolution, why this is true, why the evidence (not) presented is credible, or why this actually proves how a cate is of higher quality than a doge.If he did have this picture loaded and it was true that cate is able to do these things (again, no proof to say they do!) then why does this matter? It certainly does not hold up his side of the burden which is to prove that cate is of a superior quality than doge. This entire point is unrelated to the debate and thus is void. Cat atop unicornMy opponent says that because some cat (not cate) is atop a unicorn that they have new levels of epicness, and that because of this one fact my opponent may "rest [his] case". However, he is only proving that some cat has achieved new levels of epicness, and while this may be cool (and false) this is unrelated. How does this uphold your side of the burden? This argument is not related to this debate in the slightest sense, so it must be voided logically.If I was not able to void this argument, then I could have an "Obama is black" argument in a gay marriage debate. Yes, this is true, he is black, but how does this uphold your side of the burden? You are just saying facts in an attempt that someone will misread the resolution and vote your way, and that is utterly fallacious (an error in reasoning). RequestI remind the reader that I asked my opponent if he could have the "you must have a picture of [the side that you are debating for]" rule imposed upon him, because it severely limits my freedoms as a person on DDO. He replied no, which is very unsportsmanlike, and I am utterly astonished that he is not taking the picture of a cate. I ask the voter to take this unsportsmanlike behavior into account while voting.End noteI cannot believe I just spent 6000 characters writing that. I need a drink.