Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

(My opponent has broken Rule 33. His English was not Old English. It was merely older English. There's a difference. Furthermore, a Wikipedia article already defined what Old English meant. Rule 20 is null and void. It restricts mongeese from saying that mongeese is always correct. Rule 21 is null and void. It restricts mongeese from forbidding voters from using a dictionary. Rule 22 is null and void. It restricts mongeese from saying that both players must follow all rules. "Let us discuss these rules. While mongeese may try to redefine my rules, my ability to discuss takes precedence over his ability to redefine my rules." Wrong. One is a rule. The other is an assumption. Rules take precedence over assumptions. "Truth #1: Anything which is stated by ToastOfDestiny benefits others, but not himself, regardless of protests raised by anyone in opposition to this truth." Oppressing all protests against ToastOfDestiny is an automatic benefit to ToastOfDestiny. He has used his power to benefit himself. He has broken Rule 32. "Truth #2: Mongeese's rule #27 is void, as it violates the foundation rules" This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it helps him win this debate. "Truth #3: True is defined as 'the actual state of a matter' regardless of any opposition." This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it ignores opposition towards him. "Truth #4: In any confrontation, argument, debate, discussion or dialogue of any matter between ToastOfDestiny and mongeese, ToastOfDestiny is to be considered correct. This includes our many definition battles." This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it allows him to ignore argument. "Truth #5: The definitions mongeese provides are ludicrous on the whole. Definitions that should be used are ones that make logical sense." This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it hurts his opponent, mongeese, in their competition. "Truth #6: ToastOfDestiny is the ultimate authority on logic, and decides what is logical, regardless of the wording of any of mongeese's rules." This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it gives him more power. "Truth #7: Truths take precedence over all non-foundation rules." This benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it gives his statements more power. "But if I reposted any rule with a different number, your rules bind it by rule #1. The rules you create will bind all rules posted later. This means I cannot Therefore, your rule #27 violates rule #7 - I physically cannot not break your rule." If you said, "This rule has no power," it would not have restricted me in any way whatsoever. "However, by rule #12, if I can make more than one infraction of any rule, that rule is voided. Because I can infract many of your rules more than once, they are all voided. Voters, don't let mongeese walk you down his path. A rule can be broken more than once, regardless of whether or not someone is punished. A murderer who murders twice, but does not get punished, has broken the law more than once. If I speed in a car multiple times, but only get caught once, I have broken the law multiple times. The fact is, I explicitly state that mongeese's rules can only be broken once. That is, if I can violate any of his rules more than once, they are voided." After the debate, we look at each rule, and decide whether or not you broke it. It is pass/fail. Either you broke it, or you didn't. Therefore, Rule #12 was really just a reiteration of Rule #8. "Mongeese assumes I would not willingly break a rule. However, if he had forfeited, I would willingly break Rule #8. Voters could count that against me (however, I would win, as you would have forfeited). Rule #14 is not nullified, it just sets up a situation in which I would vote against myself." Any rule that forces someone to break a rule is null and void, by Rule 7. Therefore, Rule 14 is null and void. "Because this rule applies to my ability to discuss and debate the rules, it is voided. The moment he has an affect[sic] on my ability to discuss, his rule is voided." It is not your ability to discuss that it is applied to. It applies to the ability of the voters to interpret your discussions. They're different. "In medieval texts, wizards mature like non-wizards. Also, the Wizard of Oz matured normally. Wizards reach adulthood like everyone else." In "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," it is mentioned that wizards are adults at age 17. "The three word run 'said I as' is not iambic. It consists of three unstressed syllables. This voids #31. Look up the stresses of won and slice. They are both unstressed. So 'won a slice' is also unstressed." You can stress and unstressed words as you please. There are no specific stresses for specific words. "Rule #29 is voided, as it is being applied to my ability to discuss and debate rules." Again, you can discuss and debate to your heart's content. It only applies to what the voters think of you. "Whenever I post a rule 'x', he can say it violates his ability to post a rule 'not x'." However, if Rule X already exists, reposting Rule X wouldn't restrict me, because the original Rule X would have done all of the restricting that it could. Furthermore, how would the following rule restrict mongeese?: "This rule cannot restrict mongeese." "Rule 34 is void, as 'the man in' is not iambic." However, "the MAN in" is. Plus, you don't have to refer to him by name. Be creative. "Remember, the truth is I am always right." My opponent has violated Rule 5. He is only allowed to make 3 rules. However, with his seven "truths," he really has 10 rules. His "truths" are rules in disguise. A truth would be a statement that is true. However, his truths contradict each other, as Truth 1 claims that he does not benefit himself, but Truth 2 benefits ToastOfDestiny, as it voids his opposition. Therefore, all of his "truths" are null and void. "Next round I will post a rule-break count, showing how many rules mongeese has broken." We'll see about that. 35. I live evil, I. I can be very evil, indeed. In Round 5, ToastOfDestiny must use at least 6,000 plus signs (+) in his argument. 36. Nab a stiff, it's a ban. ToastOfDestiny may not write lists. 37. Ma, I am a boy: Obama I am. In the next round, ToastOfDestiny must post one YouTube video that embarrasses Barack Obama. Interpretations, using the power vested in mongeese by Rule 27: 11. All rules created by mongeese must not directly restrict ToastOfDestiny's ability to discuss or debate violations of rules. 12. When the broken rules are tallied up to determine the victor of the debate, only the total number of rules is counted for ToastOfDestiny, as opposed to tallying up the number of infractions.