I will not contradict myself

I'll begin this round with some quotes from my opponent to which I will respond to. ---My opponent states that I have not abided by rule number one, however there are several problems with this. In our last contradiction debate he broke a rule that was extremely unfair and he did not lose the debate. What? My opponent gave no evidence to support this statement and I'd like to remind him that outside debates are irrelevant to this, and this does not give my opponent the right to be immune to a rule stated in this debate. Moving on, the rule says I will ask ten, never saying that it can be only ten. So thus I did ask ten questions satisfying the rule. This does not violate the rule. All rules stated in the first round are very important, since it can violate rule #11, which can mean an automatical loss to CON. Now, my opponent's defense is such a ludicrous, desperate and futile attempt to find a loophole on rule #1, rule #1 states that CON will ask PRO ten questions, the rule is clear as it can be, my opponent is playing with semantics here, he didn't ask ten questions, he asked thirteen, ergo, my opponent did not satisfy said rule but violated it, it's crystal clear. ---Moving on to my opponent's arguments that I contradicted myself (Definition abuse, reminds me of me XD), again, it doesn't matter if I did contradict myself or if I refute them or not. But, just for the fun of it:Contradiction 1 Rebuttal:There is no concrete contradiction here, ladies and gentlemen, I did answer my opponent's questions, which was the first ten since they were the only relevant questions I'm obliged to answer, also, I actually answered the next three illegal questions by stating that it is against the rules. You cannot vote for CON for using this tactic to contradict me and at the same time violating the rules. Contradiction 2 Rebuttal:I kind of laughed at this, no offense, but this seriously doesn't make any sense, it's not even a contradiction, he says I contradicted myself on not being racist because I didn't believe middle-eastern attack should be killed? I'm confused, my opponent has not made a connection between racism and this phrase, so they are invalid. Rule #9 states that I (PRO) can use Merriam Webster's to define the words relating to a contradiction, and since CON's definition was baseless and he didn't actually have the authority to define it, I will now define 'descent' as a 'derivation from an ancestor'. Where's the contradiction there? Contradiction 3 Rebuttal:This is not a contradiction. My opponent never defined to which god he was referring to, or what type of god, and there was no evidence introduced on the connection between a god and having eternal life. This contradiction is invalid. Like what I did previously, I will exercise my right based on rule #9, and define 'live' as 'to be alive and define 'god' (which was not capitalized) as a 'powerful ruler'. NOTE: All definitions are based on Merriam Webster's---Again, I'd like to remind the voters that I've already won this debate due to a technicality where my opponent violated a rule (which results to an automatic loss), his reasons that I contradicted myself, though irrelevant and pointless, has already been disproved. His reason that I cheated on a previous debate is ridiculous and frivolous. Also, there's no point on answering all of CON's next questions, so, please extend these arguments.