Does this poet defeat Shakespeare in this poetry competition

I would first like to respond to my opponents closing arguments. As this is the last round, I will not bring in any new arguments, but simply rebut what my opponent has claimed in past rounds. In the last round, my opponent first copied and pasted several arguments that I had made in the round prior, and used them to try to prove me wrong. I would like to point out that he has not explained wh these arguments are wrong, he simply retyped them and included them in his closing arguments, which firstly, does not prove anything that he says, and second, goes against all of his points, so you cannot look to this part of his arguments, and I can extend these two arguments. Next, I would like to respond to his closing arguments. He first says:"i have given evidencecon has not sufficiently refuted that evidence"You cannot look to this argument as1. ) He does not explain this argument or give proof or explaination as to how it is true, and2. ) This argument is a blatant untruth, as in fact, the only evidence that my opponent has given is not evidence at all, as it is simply copying and pasting the very thing that we are debating about, which could be used to support both sides equally (if my opponent says otherwise, then there would be no debate, as it would simply be an unquestionable truth, and as my opponent started the debate, obviously he believes that it is possible to look at this from multiple points of view) and my opponent also failed to explain the importance of these quotes, and how they support his case. 3. ) If you are looking to evidence, I am te only one that provides reliable outside evidence. I provide the definition of poetry (from the Oxford Onlind Dictionary) which is key to maintaining an objective debate. Next, I will respond to my opponents following argument:"any one who read Dean's and Shakespeare's poems out aloud would here hear Dean's are more emotional and full of desire"1. ) I have proven that unless my opponent proves that desire has a link to the debate/poetry in general (which he has failed to do) you cannt look to any arguments about desire2. ) I have also proven that because emotions are subjective and not comparable, we cannot base a round n which poem is more emotional, therefore any arguments abut emotion fail. My opponent has not proven that emotions are compareable (he responded to my argument from the first round about this, but dropped the argument I made in response in the second round, showing that he agrees with this, or that it is undeniably true)My opponent's next argument of the closing speech was:"these debate is about subjectivity i. e the subjective experience of the poemsnot about word definitions"1. ) My opponent has not explained why subjectivity is better, while I have shown why it is necessary to remain objective. Debate is based off of obectivity. If it were not, a judge could walk into a debate round and say "i like your nail polish color better, so you win". While this is an extreme example of subjectivity, I use it to show that unless we look to the most objective argments and remain objective in our decisions, there is no point to debating.2. ) Word definitions are key to maintaining objectivity, and therefore key to debate. As they are key to debate, any attack on them fails, and must be dropped. Next my opponent makes several personal attacks:"con is an cons head playing with word definitionsall con had to do was read the poems out aloudcon has not read the poems out aloudif con had he would hear the emotion desire"1. ) What is a "cons head"? I do not know for sure that this is a derrogatory term, but it is not exactly professioal conduct, and I urge the voters to look at this when making decisions. 2. ) My opponent said I was "playing with word definitions". This is unwarranted as I have proven many times over that definitions are key to debate and to insult them is to insult debate itself.3. ) My opponent continues to make uneducated personal attacks. "con has not read the poems out aloudif con had he would hear the emotion desire". My opponent has no reason to belive that I have not read the poems aloud. I have, in fact read them aloud, and I still do not see that we can compare the emotion in these poems, or that desire is important to the round, which actually furthers my points. I will extend all of my arguments next and resummarize why they are important to the debate.1. ) I extend my definition of poetry, as my opponent has provided no alternative definition. Definitions are important to the debate in order to maintain objectivity.2. )I extend my argument on how you cannot quantify, objectify, or compare emotions. My opponent has not made any logical arguments otherwise, whereas I have proven this to be correct in every round of the debate. This is an importat argument, as emotions are what poetry is based off of, as shown in my definition, so if you cannot compare emotions, you cannot compare poetry through emotions.3. ) I can extend my argument on that how lyrical something is is not linked to the debate. My opponent never proved otherwise, and totally dropped this argument in the third round. This is important as it takes out the second of his three arguments.4. ) I can extend my argument against the desire of the poems. I have yet again proved that this has no link into the resolution, and my opponent has not even tried to prove otherwise, but simply repeated stating that his poet's poems have more desire without proving that desire is important to poetry. 5. ) I can extend all of the arguments that I have made to rebut my opponents attacks, as my opponent has simply dropped all of them. I urge you to vote for con as con is the only one that provides an objective and reasonable debate, whereas pro has simply created illogical arguments throughout this whole debate, and dropped almost al of the arguments which I have made. Thank you, and may the best debate win!