I will not break a rule.

The debate now boils to whether or not my opponent broke a rule in Round 1. If he did, then I win. Otherwise, my opponent wins. Rule #12 requires an example of parallelism in each round. My opponent claims that "Thanks be unto him! Give him thanks!" is parallelism. He uses the definition from WolframAlpha, but that definition is vague and unclear. It isn't even necessarily related to grammar at all, and given that the other two terms, epanalepsis and alliteration, are grammatical, it follows that parallelism was intended to be grammatical. Wikipedia clearly states that parallelism requires balance, but there is no balance between an imperative and an exclamatory sentence. We also have conflict between Rule #12, which requires epanalepsis, and Rule #28, which forbids repetition of a word. My opponent claims that using a different form of the word is still okay using WolframAplha's definition of "epanalepsis," but again, this definition is unclear on how strict the repetition must be. Wikipedia goes into much greater detail in what epanalepsis is, and clearly states that the word itself must be repeated. If one Googles "epanalepsis" (http://www.google.com...), every major source provided will agree that the word must be repeated, and none say that different forms of the same word are acceptable. If one looks at the examples provided here (http://grammar.about.com...), none of them use different forms of the same word. If different forms of the word were acceptable, wouldn't at least a few sources provide at least one example of epanalepsis that uses a different form? If we are going to be using such loose definitions, then I'd like to point out that my opponent also broke Rule #12 in Round 1 through the use of two examples of alliteration. The first is "awesome argument," andthe second is "end of every..." Rule #12 demands exactly one example, not two. You may questio whether the second example is truly alliteration, but Wikipedia agrees with me. It defines alliteration as "the repetition of a particular sound in the first syllables of a series of words and/or phrases," and even provides an example in which a word is skipped ("some mammals are clammy"), corresponding with the exclusion of "of." Therefore, my opponent broke Rule #12 in two ways, not one. Finally, we come to Rule #4, which states that neither debater may post anything besides a discussion of rule breakage or a rule itself unless a future rule requires such a deviation. My opponent claims that Rule #12 required an extra sentence, but I have already explained how he could follow Rule #12 without using an additional sentence. He claims that because he didn't include the devices in his rules, he was required to include them in an extra sentence. However, he could still edit his rules to include the devices instead. This means that he was required to either edit his rules or include an extra sentence. However, he may only use extra sentences when required, and he was not truly required to include an extra sentence when it was perfectly possible to get by without it. A requirement to do A or B cannot be restated as a requirement to do A or a requirement to do B. As he was not required by Rule #12 to use an additional sentence, by Rule #4, he couldn't use an additional sentence, but he did, breaking Rule #4. To conclude, my opponent broke Rule #4, Rule #7, and Rule #12 in Round 1, losing the debate outright by Rule #3. However, my opponent also failed to produce three rules this round, forfeiting the debate instantly. He claims that they are the same, but without actually typing the rules out, this is a mere conjecture, and not to be assumed. Therefore, my opponent forfeits the debate whether he already lost or not. 23. Everyone must put treat Wikipedia as a more reliable source than WolframAlpha, regardless of their own personal feelings. 24. All rules must be viewed in the most strict sense possible, so that a requirement to do A or B is not read as either a requirement to do A or a requirement to do B. 25. After this sentence is posted, any futher arguments must include a YouTube video that has both a rhinoceros and a racoon in it.