I will not break a rule.

((It is fairly obvious what the intentions of Rule 11 are. "11. mongoose must do all things that he has restricted mongeese from doing every round, including the round in which the restriction was put into place." It does not say that mongoose may not do what mongeese is restricted from doing. If mongoose restricts mongeese from using sources, then mongoose must use sources every round. If mongoose restricts mongeese from using more than 4,000 characters in an argument, then mongoose must use 4,000 or less characters in an argument. If I really had meant to say what my opponent thinks I meant to say, I would have said, "mongoose may not do anything that he has restricted mongeese from doing every round, including the round in which the restriction was put into place." My opponent's interpretation does not stem from analysis, but from utter confusion. There is only one way in which it can be interpreted. My opponent does not need logic to make rules. If I were to say, "My opponent must say, 'Cheese!'," does that require logic? No. My opponent may not use logic as a source. However, my opponent may still think logically. Therefore, Rules 18 and 19 are not contradictory. According to rule 17, my opponent also has burden of proof in dialogue. We are both taking turns speaking. Thus, it is dialogue. My opponent, therefore, has burden of proof. My opponent has broken Rule 18. He uses many online webpages, which qualify as sources, which is a direct conflict with Rule 18. Just because I live in Spring, doesn't mean that I can't be in Iraq. One can be beating someone else in MKW, and then running to a computer to post, without his opponent catching up. Mario Kart Wii can be played online between two people, with one in Iraq and the other in any Wi-Fi zone. It is possible to play Wii on an umiaq, and it is possible for there to be an umiaq in Iraq. People can do lots of things on their head. I may have been wearing a rubber shirt to protect myself from the tranquilizer shot. According to Rule 30, I simply have to be beating Shaq in a game of Mario Kart Wii. My opponent has been unable to prove otherwise. My opponent claims that "olgjoyeq" cannot be in an official dictionary. However, to do this, he would have to show an empty space between olfactory and something else (I forget what was below it) in every single official dictionary in existence. He cannot do this. Therefore, he cannot prove that I broke Rule 31, and since he has the burden of proof, this debate must assume that I did not break Rule 31. Now, there are some rules that my opponent has broken: 12. My opponent has many sentences without the letter Q, including: "My opponent has broken all three of my rules." "I will now continue this debate." "I would like to explain the way that rule 11 can be confusing." 14. My opponent has failed to assume "that mongeese is omnipresent and omnipotent, and therefore is in Iraq standing on his head, is riding in an umiaq, and is shot by a tranq gun, all at the same time, before as, and after he posts for this round." He gives no reason that he ever did. 18. My opponent used six online sources in his most recent argument. Therefore, he broke the rule.)) 20. All of mongoose's sentences must be flawless in grammar and spelling, with the exception of usernames and foreign words used in an English sentence. 21. Whenever mongoose breaks a rule, everything that was made possible because of that rule-break is to be ignored. 22. mongoose may not use the word "be," nor any conjugation of the word "be."