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

JJJJJJJIIIIIIIIIIIIAA Catwoman is a cat whereas Batman is a bat. “Hi” –David Hume “Hi” –George Washington “In the beginning” –Gen 1:1 Squirtle, Charmander and Bulbasaur can kill Batman. Rules Broken If I can adequately prove that Mestari has broken atleast one of the rules first with clear evidence, it’s is sufficient to ensure jm_notguilty’s victory since rule 3 states that, “If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses.” Accusations to CON Rule 26- CON seems to be twisting my words and confusing us, he argues that Rule 26 doesn’t contradict rule 11/13 because the rules weren’t enforced yet, but again, I stated those rules (11, 13) before my opponent posted rule 26 in which automatically contradicts rules 11, 13, which affects rule 1 which applies to round 1. It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t enforced yet in that round. Also, CON then argues that rule 26 only will only apply once I post round 2, but with his poor choice of words, it is very much safe to assume that rule 26 will also apply (or only apply) to round 1, he could’ve clarified this rule in his post, but he didn’t, thus sparking a dispute which is a very clear contradiction. Rule 27- This was obvious. Mestari has caught himself red-handed when he realized that this rule was against the FR, so he tried a futile attempt to refute it with semantics. Nice try, but let’s not confuse each other here ladies and gents, the word ‘instruction’ is crystal clear to all. And if you viewers realize, among the definitions CON has provided, he left some out. He has grossly misinterpreted the word ‘instruct’ and my accusation. Now according to Dictionary.com (from her link), ‘instruct’ also means “to furnish with orders or directions.” ßThis was the accurate meaning and Mestari knows it, it was a Hail Mary for him to rely on semantics and technicalities. Bottomline, it’s clearly obvious that rule 27 specifically orders, directs and instructs PRO to not make CON’s rules apply to CON and that it restricts PRO from making CON’s rules apply to CON, which is, again, contradictory to rule 12 (which was 1st made) which violates foundation rule 1. This clearly has instructive and restrictive intent. This accusation firmly stands and is a clear violation. Rule 28- Clearly if I (hypothetically) accused my opponent on a rule he broke and later found out he didn’t break it then be bound to be violating rule 28, it is a clear violation and abuse on my right to attempt a discussion on rule breakage, whether my opponent broke it or not, I should still have the right to point it out and let my opponent respond for me to learn and understand what he meant by it, and if his defense checks out, obviously I need to drop it but then the outcome would be that I violated a rule. Clear abuse on my right vested upon me by the FR. --- Rule 10- My opponent broke this rule when he started three new rules with #28, but if you noticed, he used #28 last round. Rule 11- My opponent has broken this rule for not ending his sentences with the letter ‘J’, clear violation. I will be addressing his failed explanation on this in my defense. Rule 12- This rule was broken when CON made rules 28, 29 and 30. The instructions in those rules were placed on PRO when rule 12 specifically states that all CON’s rules must apply to himself too. Rule 13- My opponent has broken this rule for not ending his sentences with a comma (,), clear violation. I’ll address his attempt to explain on this in my defense. Rule 28- Contradicts rule 12 which affects/violates rule 1. It also violates rule 7 since it’s impossible to do this and it contradicts rule 29 which again affects/violates rule 1. Rule 29- Contradicts rule 12 which affects/violates rule 1. It also violates rule 7 since it’s impossible to do this and it contradicts rule 28 which again affects/violates rule 1. Rule 30- Contradicts rule 12 which affects/violates rule 1. Defense Re: Rule 28- This rule is considered to be null and void since I’ve argued that this rule was against FR, making it invalid. Furthermore, even if this is valid, CON’s argument here fails since he did break a rule which negates this rule’s instruction. Re: Rule 11- My opponent’s excuse for not following this rule is that this rule was against FR, making me break the FR. This is false. He claims that this violates FR 7 because it’s ‘impossible’. But it’s only impossible if we’re required to speak English or abide in a specific dictionary, but since no rule has been made that specifically state that each person should only speak English, then this rule is valid since there are foreign words that end with J that CON can use, or CON can use valid names or abbreviations that end with J (example: Raj, CJ, EJ, etc). Also, ‘words’ weren’t specifically defined, so no one’s going to dispute anything, just use any possible words under the sun and you’re okay, but sadly CON didn’t see it. For example, my opponent could write (in his rules): 29. PRO must capitalize all common nouns, verbs and adj. 30. PRO must make Indian jokes, unless his married to Raj. 31. PRO must post a funny YouTube video of a DJ. 32. PRO must show a video of someone doing a BJ. 33. PRO must say he is the ‘El Reloj”. 34. PRO must say he is the “El Contrarreloj”. Etc, etc, etc. But if CON still insist on using ‘technical’ English words that end with ‘J’, here’s a link: http://quasistoic.org... Finally, I’d like to cite some case laws previous ‘Rule’ debates that used this tactic and made my argument valid. Re: Rule 13- Similar to my opponent’s flaw on not following rule 11 because it’s impossible. But says who, a dictionary? That’s too shallow. Please note that there is no rule specified previously that instructs both players to use perfect grammar and punctuation. Ergo, this is a clear violation my opponent made. My opponent’s just probably lazy or sick to see green lines when he uses MS word to type his post. So in conclusion, I, jm_notguilty hasn’t broken a SINGLE rule since the debate started and my previous rules stand clear. Also, since my opponent violated the rules first thus ensuring my victory. Further Rules 17) Both debaters must post a video of a Pop singer or a plane crash in each round. 18) Both debaters must tell a ‘Knock knock’ joke in each round. 19) Both debaters are to be able to speak in any language they want and may use improper grammar/punctuation whenever necessary or whenever they wish.