I will not break a rule {NEW MEMBER TOURNAMENT FINALS}

Summation Thanks for the response. Now, at this point, all the next following rounds would be a debate on who broke a rule first between PRO and CON. Please note again as per rule 3 that the first player who breaks a rule first should lose. I will prove that the following accusations I made were clear and that the accusations CON’s indictments against me are invalid. I will first start with my defense then proceed to backing up my claims. Defense/Case Rule 13 defense Yes, CON gave evidence that ending a sentence with a comma is impossible, but he based this evidence by citing expert testimony. First and foremost, this is irrelevant since again, we are not bound to follow proper grammar punctuation/structure in this debate. ‘Sentence’ wasn’t also broadly defined. So to clarify things a bit, according to Wikipedia/Dictionary.com, a ‘sentence’ is defined as “a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words that generally bear minimal syntactic relation to the words that precede or follow it. A sentence can include words grouped meaningfully to express a statement, question, exclamation, request, command or suggestion.” (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Without even using proper punctuation, a grammatical unit ending with a comma can be considered a sentence because it can express a statement, command, etc. Ending a sentence with a comma is therefore, possible. Furthermore, my opponent states that ending sentences would result to it being a fragment, but so what? Does that make it impossible to type? A fragment can be considered a sentence, if we disregard proper punctuation. But seriously, this boils down to possibility. Let’s think logically, is it impossible? I don’t think so, consider the following: 1) Is it possible for CON to type in his post? Yes. 2) Is it possible for CON to type sentences in his post? Yes. 3) Is it possible for CON to end his sentences with commas by typing in his post? Yes. C) Therefore, it is possible to end his sentences with commas by typing in his post. Lol, how do I put this…. The person makes the sentence. The person has every right and power to do whatever he/she wants with the sentence. The sentence doesn’t make itself. It doesn’t correct or change itself because it doesn’t have the power to do so since a sentence is… well, a sentence, not a living thing. Now, to the real question, CON states that this rule violates rule 7, but does it really apply here? Did Mestari have an opportunity to not break this rule? Based on what I’ve proven above, Mestari did have the opportunity to not break rule 13. Ergo, this claim is a huge stretch to CON, I’ve already refuted this premise and shown that this accusation is invalid since we are not bound to follow proper sentencing/grammar rules and since there was no rule made that states we need to do so. Rule 28 defense Let me simplify: 1) FR grants us the right to discuss potential rule breakage, extraordinary claims or not, and shouldn’t be held liable for accusing it. 2) I (PRO) point out potential rule breakage that my opponent probably committed, thus accusing him. 3) Opponent (CON) successfully puts up defense, thus making me drop the accusation. 4) Opponent has put a rule claiming that me accusing him would be a rule violation (rule 28). 5) But I was just exercising my right to discuss potential rule breakage. If I have knowledge of rule 28, it would limit me from making extraordinary or shallow claims even though I’m entitled to it. C) Ergo, this rule contradicts rule 7 which affects rule 1 and must be considered invalid, null and void. Furthermore, if this was considered valid, I still wouldn’t be held completely liable because this would end up in a he-said, she-said dispute, so it’s hard to judge this accusation. Observe: 1) PRO accuses CON of breaking rule x. 2) CON makes defense and claims PRO now breaks rule 28. 3) PRO attacks CON’s defense and nullifying CON’s rule 28 accusation. 4) Repeat 2). 5) Repeat 3). And so on. We would never know if CON actually broke rule x since he’ll keep defending himself and PRO can’t be held liable on breaking rule 28 because he would insist that CON broke rule x thus making the rule 28 accusation invalid. -------------------------- Rule 26 accusation Again, I repeat, I made the rule first, so rule 26 contradicts rules 11/13, it doesn’t matter if it wasn’t enforced yet, it’s still a contradiction. But CON stipulates that he doesn’t mean that and that my claim of his word, and ‘made’ only applies to the future simple tense. There’s a difference between past and future simple: Past: Rule 26) All rules made by the PRO must apply to both the PRO and CON. Future Simple: Rule 26) All rules which will be made by the PRO must apply to both the PRO and CON. CON should’ve used the right sentencing structure if he really meant to make ‘made’ apply to the future simple tense. Rule 27 accusation I’d like to remind the voters that the current issue here is what rule 12 really meant. CON’s playing with semantics again, and he further argues that his definitions should be more superior because he defined it first. This is flawed if not unfair. I have a right to discuss rule breakage and a de-facto obligation to clarify and define things. Again, the definitions given by CON are far-fetched and my definitions made more sense and CON knows it. My opponent could ask for clarification in comments, but he didn’t. Therefore, he blatantly misinterpreted the word ‘instruct’. Think logically, why would my definition of ‘instruct’ be teach? Does it make sense if I said “All of teachings/restrictions placed on PRO by CON must also be followed by CON.”? No, of course not, the more plausible meaning of this word is to order or give command. As for ‘restrict’, remember my opponent defined that word, and I agree, but he states that his rules didn’t instruct/restrict, really? Do his rules restrict/limit me from doing something? Observe: Rule 26: All rules made by the PRO must apply to both the PRO and CON. - This limits me from making rules that only apply to CON since this rule states that every rule I make should apply to both of us. Rule 27 (This rule): The PRO may not make my rules apply to myself. - This limits me from making rules apply to CON. Therefore, this makes her argument that she doesn’t restrict PRO from doing anything invalid. Rule 28:The PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break. - This limits me from accusing him of potential rule breakage as explained by me in the rule 28 defense. Obviously, these restrictions also collide with instructions, since it instructs/commands. TLDR? Let's proceed to what's relevant: PRO’s Rule 12: All of instructions/restrictions placed on PRO by CON must also be followed by CON. CON’s Rule 27: The PRO may not make my rules apply to myself. So given the above, this rule contradicts rule 12, which violates rule 1. Moreover, CON’s second reason relating rule 27 and 26 is invalid because rule 27 still contradicts rule 12 nevertheless. I highly doubt that rule 27 meant to apply to the next following rounds because it is impossible since I already posted rule 12 first. Rule 28 accusation See my rule 28 defense to back up this accusation. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve proven my case, my opponent made a noble yet futile effort to backup his claims and accusations, but in summary, my opponent was definitely the first person who broke a rule and therefore I must win this debate. Thank you. I await CON’s response. Good luck.