I will not contradict myself

I would first like to say that I will not stoop to the level of my opponent as to try and negatively stigmatise him just to win a debate. It seems as if my opponent is somewhat angry, perhaps because he realized he contradicted himself? Who knows, but I find calling arguments "desperate and frivolous" and "laughing" at arguments just a little unprofessional. With all these aside, let's move on and I will explain why I have already won this sad debate. I am not going to bring up last debate into this one, so I will not discuss this further just for the sake of making this debate more clear. Why I did not break Rule #1, and why my opponent has broken the rules multiple times. Not surprisingly, my opponent has continued to be nit-picky and narrow minded. He has stooped so far down as to not even answering my questions anymore! I find this poor ettiquete. Again Rule #1 clearly states:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. Now did I ask ten questions? Yes I did, I just happened to exceed the amount stated in the rule by only THREE questions. Keep in mind my opponent has stopped debating over THREE questions. If this isn't self-explanatory enough, I will explain why I have not violated any rules1. The rule never states that you MUST answer three questions, or that you can't EXCEED three questions.2. If my opponent really wants to be that picky, then he might as well say that you can only ask ten over the course of all three rounds! Literally that's what it seems to imply for it never says ten for each round, it just says from rounds 1-3 I will ask ten.3. I asked ten questions. You can go on and on saying that I asked more but for the last time it was never a requirement to only ask ten. I sufficiently asked ten questions regardless if three were extraneous or not. Now that you have realized that I have broken no apparent rule, I will explain why my opponent has completely broken a rule. In question ten I stated "Will you abide by every in this debate? ". My opponent responded "yes". However again I will state again that the rule #2 says:2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. Again, regardless if the last three questions of the first round were illegal or not, for I will let the readers decide, there will still questions. The rules said he must answer ALL questions. Illegal questions fall under the category of "questions", no? Even if the readers and my opponents STILL disagree, my opponent didn't even answer to my ten questions in round 2! How was it illegal for me to ask ten questions in round 2? So, has my opponent answered all of my questions? The answer is an obvious no. He said earlier that he will abide by every rule. If he has not abided by this rule that states he must answer all questions, then he has contradicted himself for he said he will abide by all rules. My opponent has gotten smart apparently for he has decided to define all the words after I supplied a definition. I think this is unfair, however the rules clearly allow him to so he has successfully contorted my contentions thus now making me drop them. Conclusion:I will provide a brief summary of this debate and why exactly you should vote for me. My opponent has ruined this whole entire debate by claiming that I have broken a rule and has conceded to debate. In most debates, a concession is a win for the opposing side. My opponent has stopped debating over three questions, rather immature if you ask me. It has been very hard for me to point out contradictions since he hasn't answered more than half of my questions! However, one contradiction still stands even though he only answered one set of questions. He said he would abide by every rule, and it's obvious that he did not. So, who are you going to vote for? The debater that conceded debating and has based the whole thing off a "technicality" violation? I think you should read through the entire debate yourself and realize how absurd my opponent's claims have been. Thanks for reading and I urge a CON vote. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.