Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

This round will be kept nice and simple. I'm going to start things by exposing the flaw in YL's reasoning that proposes my third rule to be dropped. First, I ask that you examine the wording of my opponent's seventh rule. "6. Both the pro and con may introduce new rules during their rounds." What does one interpret from this rule? Both contestants of this discourse have the OPTION of presenting new rules. Now if the rule had stated "Both the pro and con MUST/CAN'T introduce new rules during their rounds", then my opponent would be correct. To make a long story short, it is impossible for me not to abide by (and violate) my opponent's seventh rule. If this is to be the case, my rule does not contradict it. Thus, including it into the list of the rules I proposed CON would have to abide by would have been unnecessary on my part. Although to pacify my opponent, let us go ahead and assume that my third rule really did contradict his seventh one. If that is the case, then I still would not be guilty of having violated rule 4.5. Since my opponent doesn't have a problem with changing his argument between round two rounds (as in accepting my rule in the previous round and rejecting it in the current), then I see don't see a problem either: Please take the time to observe my second rule made in round 1: "The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rules in rounds 2-4." A maximum of 110 rules in rounds two through four. In other words, it would be impossible for me to present 109 "in each of my speeches" while following the rules as I am only allowed to present a maximum of 110 rules within the time frame of 3 rounds. With that being noted, all of my rules which I introduced during the previous round remain in tact. Since my opponent's round 3 ruling exceed 6 words and has nothing to do with pizza, it contradicts the rules of round 2 and is to be thrown out. Given the fact that my opponent has conceded to violating the rules (response 16), he has conceded to losing this game. My opponent resorts to some deception by giving you the idea that he really presented twenty responses, but his mistake was combining these responses into a paragraph. If each hinges on the other, that means that they are to be considered the same response. In other words, my opponent has violated the 177 character rule. As for my opponent, he violated my first round 1 rule in that he doesn't list two rules. Take note that it was phrased in that he could ONLY present two rules per round. The fact that he presented ONLY one is a clear violation. Furthermore, this rule has nothing to do with pizza, so it automatically contradicts. My opponent uses the sixth taboo word found in the sixth rule during round 3. This violation can be found in response 12. My opponent uses some of the taboo words which I had listed in my first round 2 rule, thus further violation of the rules. The PRO also doesn't refer to me as "Super Great Mighty Awesome Intellectual King Logical-Master" during his round. Question: Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moon light? Rules: 1) The PRO is not allowed to wear a hat during round 4. 2) The PRO's next round must be posted in the German language (excluding the answer to my question as well as the obligation in implied in my next rule) 3) The PRO is required to reveal his undying love for Ann Coulter in round 4.