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

Ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the final conclusion. My opponent has conceded on rebutting my previous accusations and decided to focus whether or not I violated a rule first (rule 7), so if I successfully argue that I did not violate rule 7, you must and should vote for PRO because my opponent has violated rules rule 1 and rule 7 when she posted in R2. Any new arguments CON makes this round that addresses my previous accusations must be disregarded since I wouldn’t have the opportunity to rebut them, I trust my opponent would do the ethical thing. Now, let’s review the subject in hand: Rule in question: Rule 13 (CON must use a comma instead of a full stop at the end of every sentence he makes.) Violation 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, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate.) Reason: Rule 13 is impossible to follow because a college says so, and that once we use sentences, we need to conform on proper grammar. Defense: I'll repeat this again, there is NO rule the specifically state we have to conform on using perfect grammar/punctuation. My opponent never addressed this point accurately, we are not bound, nor do we have any obligation to follow the rules of linguistics. I’ve also defined what a sentence means, CON dismissed it because it only defines what a sentence’ purpose is, it’s still relevant to this debate and must be taken to consideration. Furthermore, just because this rule breaks a rule in linguistics, it DOES NOT mean he had no opportunity to not break it, and it DOES NOT mean that I broke rule 7. He had the opportunity and the possibility to not break it. Furthermore, My opponent could’ve argued that this rule was to be null and void at best, but this rule was NEVER a violation of the FR. He took the long road and argued something ludicrous, she blatantly misunderstood my defense on this and then commented on it being stupid, I take offense on that. If anything, they are valid and they stand firm. CON's arguments, on the other hand, relies on technicalities as proper linguistics, which is irrelevant and inadmissible, not to mention it being frivolous and ridiculous. In the simplest terms, again, my opponent had the opportunity and possibility to type, to type sentences, to make sentences, to edit and fix his sentences. This makes him have the opportunity to not break rule 13 because this gives him the possibility to follow the rule by editing his sentences, he had the ability and power to do so. Like what I said in the last round: “The person makes the sentence. The person has every right and power to do whatever he/she wants with the sentence. The sentence doesn’t make itself. It doesn’t correct or change itself because it doesn’t have the power to do so since a sentence is a sentence, not a living thing.” --- Mestari, I thank you for your desperate efforts to find a loophole on this one, it was a brave but futile venture on your part. I also thank Blackvoid for hosting this tournament that has been going since the summer, I congratulate him for being the first person to successfully host a tournament. And finally, I thank the readers and voters for spectating and judging. I urge them to please extend my previous arguments and please note that when voting, all 7 points go to the winner, regardless of the categories. I wish you all happy holidays. Vote PRO. <(^_^)>