Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

Let's start by looking at the text of rule #7. "Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule." Direct your attention to the last sentence. Mongeese's rule #27 (my rules can't restrict his) violates this. Any rule that I make binds his future rules by rule #1 (rules take precedence by order posted and no rule can contradict previous ones). By creating rules, I restrict his ability to create rules contradicting mine (if my rule says 'X', mongeese can't make a valid rule that says 'not X'). However, due to mongeese's rules, I cannot do this. There is absolutely no way I can not violate this rule, which violates rule #7. Therefore, rule #27 is voided. < > That doesn't change the fact that I can break the rule multiple times. I can not post an animal video this round (one infraction), then not post one in the next round (two infractions). It is entirely possible to break a rule more than once. In the real world, I can commit a murder, then commit another murder. I have just broken the law (rules on steroids) more than once. Let us look at the original text of rule #12. "Any rules created by my opponent can only result in one infraction from me (i.e. any rules they make can only be broken once)" Therefore, any rules mongeese makes that can be broken more than once are in contradiction with rule #12 (barring his rules about that ballad). Rule #12 takes precedence over all of his rules, so barring rules 30 and 31, they are all voided. < > If two 'truths' oppose each other, one is not the true truth. We can have a hearty debate about which truth is true, after which the voter shall decide which truth is truly the true truth. In addition, mongeese's rule #27 (my rules can't restrict his) is a violation of my rule #12, as I can make multiple rules restricting him, breaking his rule multiple times. < Rule #15 also might as well be null and void, by Rule #1.>> Untrue. I don't 'have' to vote. I vote only when I want to. Rule #9 does not bind me to vote. However, rule #14 states that the only time I 'have' to vote for you is when you stop posting rules. That is, if you stop posting rules, I will vote and vote for you. In doing so, I will be breaking one rule. < > Those rules may hold power over #15, but #15 does not violate them. http://www.youtube.com... Then to mongeese's #29. This rule violates my rule #11, as it hampers my ability to discuss and debate rule violations. If I post an argument, mongeese has the power to change its meaning. Rule #29 is void. Rule #30 is impossible for me to to follow. It asks me to write a ballad about a 'man' aged '17'. 'Man' is defined as 'an adult male person'. 'Adult' in turn is 'having attained full size'. Toasted, unfortunately, will never be an adult, as he will continually gain weight, and shall therefore never reach a full size until his body completely decays. Rule #31 violates rule #30, as ""Now dine," said I, as Enid won a slice" is not iambic. Since this rule is in contradiction with rule #30, it cannot be followed. Let's move on to the definitions. I shall make the definitions I disagree with more accurate through www.dictionary.com 1) but not: yet are prohibited from applying to (definition in context) -but: yet -not: used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition 2) can only be broken once -mongeese's definition is in violation of my rule. If you read the text of rule #12, there is a clause clarifying the meaning of the rule. 3) if and only if: in the case that, moreover, solely in the case that -if: in the case that -only: solely -and: moreover 4) establish: to fix unalterably Let me establish some rules myself now. 17. Mongeese performing actions in his mind or some other world which is not reality will for the purpose of this debate suffice as mongeese being able to perform actions, regardless of the circumstances, except in, and only in, the case that mongeese uses this rule to back up the following logic: "I am following ToastOfDestiny's rules in an imaginary world, and can break them here". Any argument which approaches this logic is in violation of this rule. If there exists a world, real or unreal, in which mongeese is unrestricted, mongeese is, for the purposes of this debate unrestricted. However, just because mongeese is unrestricted in that world does not mean he is unrestricted in this debate. 18. There exists at least one imaginary world, which is not this debate, in which mongeese is not restricted in any way. 19. ToastOfDestiny has the absolute (this power cannot be removed) power to reword any of his rules.