Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

Note the English I am using is older than today's English I typed up all my rules before I typed the rest of my rebuttal, making this English old in comparison to the rest of my rebuttal. 20. If a voter is in doubt over who has won an issue, said voter should consider that ToastOfDestiny is correct. 21. Voters shall refer to a dictionary when interpreting arguments. When voting, mongeese does not need to refer to a dictionary when interpreting arguments. 22. Mongeese never has to follow any of my rules. However, if he chooses to break my rules, voters shall consider this breakage of rules as mongeese breaking rules. That is, mongeese can do as he wishes, but breaking the rules will still count. This applies to any rule I have made. Mongeese has no strict obligation to follow my rules, but breaking them still counts. Mongeese is no longer restricted by my rules. He can do what he wants, whether it results in breaking my rules or abiding by them. If he breaks my rules, though, this counts against him when voting. Let us discuss these rules. While mongeese may try to redefine my rules, my ability to discuss takes precedence over his ability to redefine my rules. Rule 20 states that voters should consider that I am correct. Rule 21 states that voters should refer to a dictionary when interpreting arguments. Rule 22 states that mongeese isn't restricted by my rules, but breaking them results in infractions. <32. ToastOfDestiny may use powers that he has given himself through his rules if and only if he only uses his powers for the good of mankind (only to benefit others, never benefitting himself in any way).> Granting myself the power to establish the truth benefits everyone except me. It gives the human population an absolute reference point. I would not benefit, as being the standard for truth is a very stressful position. Therefore, since I benefit others but never myself, I retain the ability to establish any truth I want. Truth #1: Anything which is stated by ToastOfDestiny benefits others, but not himself, regardless of protests raised by anyone in opposition to this truth. Truth #2: Mongeese's rule #27 is void, as it violates the foundation rules Truth #3: True is defined as "the actual state of a matter" regardless of any opposition. Truth #4: In any confrontation, argument, debate, discussion or dialogue of any matter between ToastOfDestiny and mongeese, ToastOfDestiny is to be considered correct. This includes our many definition battles. Truth #5: The definitions mongeese provides are ludicrous on the whole. Definitions that should be used are ones that make logical sense. Truth #6: ToastOfDestiny is the ultimate authority on logic, and decides what is logical, regardless of the wording of any of mongeese's rules. Truth #7: Truths take precedence over all non-foundation rules. < He could have copied his pre-existing rules and used them again, which would not restrict me any further than I already was, which would comply with the rule.> But if I reposted any rule with a different number, your rules bind it by rule #1. The rules you create will bind all rules posted later. This means I cannot Therefore, your rule #27 violates rule #7 - I physically cannot not break your rule. However, by rule #12, if I can make more than one infraction of any rule, that rule is voided. Because I can infract many of your rules more than once, they are all voided. Voters, don't let mongeese walk you down his path. A rule can be broken more than once, regardless of whether or not someone is punished. A murderer who murders twice, but does not get punished, has broken the law more than once. If I speed in a car multiple times, but only get caught once, I have broken the law multiple times. The fact is, I explicitly state that mongeese's rules can only be broken once. That is, if I can violate any of his rules more than once, they are voided. Mongeese assumes I would not willingly break a rule. However, if he had forfeited, I would willingly break Rule #8. Voters could count that against me (however, I would win, as you would have forfeited). Rule #14 is not nullified, it just sets up a situation in which I would vote against myself. <#29 does not at all violate #11. ToastOfDestiny can still discuss and debate rule violations. I'm just going to interpret whatever he says to however I please. > Because this rule applies to my ability to discuss and debate the rules, it is voided. The moment he has an affect on my ability to discuss, his rule is voided. <#30 is perfectly possible to follow. At least, it was at the time of its creation. ToastOfDestiny then decided to make up an excuse for how Toasted could not be an adult. Toasted could be a wizard. Wizards reach adulthood by age 17.> In medieval texts, wizards mature like non-wizards. Also, the Wizard of Oz matured normally. Wizards reach adulthood like everyone else. < The phrase is perfectly iambic. now DINE said I as E-nid WON a SLICE>> The three word run 'said I as' is not iambic. It consists of three unstressed syllables. This voids #31. Look up the stresses of won and slice. They are both unstressed. So 'won a slice' is also unstressed. Rule #29 is voided, as it is being applied to my ability to discuss and debate rules. Because it makes definitions provided in my discussion irrelevant, it is affecting my ability to discuss. Therefore, rule #29 is void. Mongeese has just posted two stellar examples of how his rule #27 is voided. Whenever I post a rule 'x', he can say it violates his ability to post a rule 'not x'. Even if I repost an old rule, by rule #1 all of mongeese's current rules would bind the re-post (all created rules have power over rules posted later). This means, under rule #27, there is absolutely no rule I can post without breaking one of mongeese's rules. Rule #27 is voided. Rule 34 is void, as "the man in" is not iambic. Remember, the truth is I am always right. Next round I will post a rule-break count, showing how many rules mongeese has broken. http://www.youtube.com...