Does this poet defeat Shakespeare in this poetry competition

1. To start, I would like to respond to the unwarranted attack on my use of definitions. My opponent stated: "firstly get over your addiction to definitions" This comment shows both bad conduct and a lack of understanding about debate. The point of a debate is to maintain objectivity, and look at the truth and arguments that each side presents. If no definitions are provided, it is impossible to remain objectivity as there is no way of knowing exactly what you are debating. In this round, my opponent could have been debating with a very different definition of poetry than I was using, and the only way to clarify is to use definitions. You must look to my definition of poetry when judging and voting for the round, because my opponent provides no other alternative, and my definition is from a highly credible source (Oxford Online Dictionary). 2. I would next like to respond to my opponents first argument, in which he states that: "it is common knowledge amongst poets that lyrical refers to musicality thus deans poems are more musical than Shakespeare" I would like to point out that the argument that I had made against this point originally was not solely based off of the definition of lyrical, but on its link to poetry, and why how lyrical something was actually mattered to the debate of which was a better poem. I had pointed out that the definition of poetry which I had provided did not include anything about how lyrical a poem was. My opponent has not provided any link from his point on lyrical to the resolution, and has not shown that how lyrical something is actually matters to poetry. Therefore you cannot look to my opponent's argument. I extend my argument against this. 3. I will next respond to my opponents second argument which states: "you can ompare emotions a sobbing girl is less emotional than an hysteric crying girl thus deans poems are more emotional than Shakespeare" I would like to bring to attention the fact that every person expresses emotions in different ways. Some people tend to have stronger reactions to things then other people, but that does not mean that they are more emotional, simply that they choose to express what they feel more. For example; if one person is public when they find out terrible news, they will be just as upset as if they had found out at any other time, but they may choose to try to hold it together until they are alone, whereas if someone finds out terrible news in private, they are more inclined to show how upset they are because there is nothing stopping them from doing so. So, we have no way of comparing emotions because we do not know what the true level of someones emotions are. Therefore, my opponents second argument does not stand, and my argument which states " Therefore, we cannot quantify or compare emotions, so we cannot say that one poem is better than another as this would entail comparing their expression of feelings, which I have proven to be impossible" still stands. I extend my argument. 4. I would like to bring back my opponents original third argument which stated: " his poems have more desire in them than Shakespeare's sonnets" My argument against this was that there was no link from desire to poetry or to the resolution. My opponent has dropped this argument, showing that he concedes to my arguments against it, which I can therefore extend. 5. My opponent has posted several examples of the poetry which we are comparing, however he has not shown how it is relevant to the debate, or even proven that what he is saying about it is true, therefore you cannot look to this as evidence for his case, and you must drop this from the debate. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your next arguments!