I will not contradict myself

This was a ton of fun, and I hope to have many more debates like this in the very near future. Since this will be my last round, I'm going to be very brief. I'm simply going to address my opponent's supposed contradictions, offer my final thoughts, and end the round. Again, a huge thank you to my opponent for taking this debate! = Contradiction refutations = 1. This was not a contradiction on my part, as I never answered my opponent's supposed first question. It wasn't even a question, but a clarification. Furthermore, based off of the structure of my round 2 answers my answer regarding the alleged cake was the only acceptable answer based in both my opponent's clarification in round 3, and the structuring of my answers in round 2. For my opponent to make this argument, is not a contradiction on my part, but a indirect (i. e. Not straight forward) question. Thus even if you choose to buy my opponent's faulty logic, I've not contradicted myself I had chosen not to answer a question that wasn't straight forward. 2. As my opponent's himself has said "He probably didn't answer it because he didn't see it, as it was hidden with invisible text. " This was not a straight forward question. It was hidden. Any-one simply skimming over this round, would have had no possible way to see that question; thus again I am freed from the burden of answering this question. I would also like to point out this is major grounds for a loss in conduct points. 3. In round two, I didn't ask the questions my opponent. And in round three, I didn't ask any questions either; I answered my opponent's question by telling him what questions I had for him. Furthermore, when I quote my opponent's questions I am not asking questions; I am simply quoting what he himself said. My opponent puts me in an unfair position here, he claims that by adhering to his request to quote his questions in order to maintain clarity I break the rules. This is not a contradiction, but a cheap attempt at a win by my opponent. Also if I have to say it so bluntly; while breaking a rule is grounds for a loss in conduct, it isn't a contradiction. I never said I would adhere to the rules, and I only break them if you accept my opponent's flawed logic. 4. My opponent's conclusion here is a correlation causation fallacy. He claims that because not burying the survivors is utilitarian I am a utilitarian. However this is only true if I am indeed a Utilitarian; which I am not. My reasoning behind not burying the survivors isn't some deep rooted desire to propel the common good; it's a lack of desire and tough to do so on my part. Furthermore even if I didn't want to bury these people because of a Utilitarian reason, that wouldn't make me a Utilitarian as that not prove I would choose a utilitarian decision every time. Last week while in the cafeteria before school, I didn't feel well so I decided to give my breakfast away. My reason for doing so wasn't because I wanted to help another hungry friend (thereby making me a utilitarian) but it was because the food was making me feel sick. Ultimately my driving action was one to achieve an end that benefited me; in the same way, my not burying the plane survivors isn't a utilitarian driven action, but one to achieve an end that benefits myself. = Conclusion = If at this point you see no contradictions from me, you must vote for me regardless of what my opponent says in the next round. The reason being is that since I won't be able to respond to whatever my opponent says in the next round, whatever he says will not be a binding contradiction against me. I have done all I can not to contradict myself, and I have proven throughout the course of this debate that I have not contradicted myself. At every point my opponent as show a contradiction, I have shown that I had not contradicted myself. I have pointed out my opponent's smoke and mirror tactics time and time again. I've even adhered to my opponent's requests of quoting his questions in round for maximum clarity of the voters.