My opponent will not be able to win this debate

"There is a super pro, however in this debate you are not him." I just said I was "that weird-looking kangeroo." What? You don't trust my word? And you trust this guy who falsely claims he is 110 years old? Puh-leaze. Don't trust my opponent. All his definitions are wrong and so are his arguments. He's lying about everything. He even admits "I posted 110 years old just for fun". "And I did make fair rules. Fair is "moderately large"http://dictionary.reference.com... had a moderatly large font, furthermore the quantity of rules was moderatly large as well." Hello? "Moderately large" depends on opinion. This could be "moderately large". THIS COULD BE "MODERATELY LARGE".Your arguments have been disproved. " I do have sources. This is another reason why I will win, because my opponent can't even read." Well, you only had sources in the last round, which don't exactly help you. -.- And Teemo STILL hasn't learned his lesson yet, having not nearly as much characters as me. Which is not a new argument at all."Also laziness makes me Bruno Mars. That is why people will vote for me. Girls love Bruno Mars." And spending effort makes me Albert Einstien. Girls AND boys all love Albert Einstien. Plus, he's about one billion times smarter than Bruno Mars. And that's lowballing it. Rebuttals to my opponent's possible rebuttals. If my opponent tries to state anything new: "YOU LOSE MAN. REREAD THE RULES!!"If my opponent attempts to strengthen his argument about how I didn't follow his rules, therefore I should lose all 7 points--do I have to keep on repeating the fact that it is incredibly unfair and I didn't agree to those dumb chump rules? Did I mention that I was sarcastic when I said "I accept the rules"?If my opponents attempts to post another cool picture: "New argument, new argument warning! And remember, you already broke conduct by making ridiculous rules. Don't want to lose it further, eh?"In conclusion, I have won this debate. To sum this up: I cleverly drew Teemo in with a troll-like topic, then bulleted him fast with a "Fact-attack". He attempted to manipulate the debate so it would be impossible for pro to beat him, but I slyly responded by saying I was imabench (EDIT: iMabench), so his guard was down, and he posted less in round 3. Then I destroyed him by making new evidence and strengthening my original argument. Con weakly tries to save him, but it is too late--I provided the sources earlier. He was super unfair. He knows I cannot post new argument in this round because of my "no new arguments" rule. However, I had no new arguments. Lying was there all along. Albert Einstein just popped up, being revived from the OLD-fashioned days, and thus, not a new argument. All in all, I have very ingeniously trapped Teemo by letting his guard down and seeing him getting arrogant, thinking his rules bounded me, when in reality, it was very unfair and I was not 9spaceking. All these arguments surely grants myself a victory; the first victory of anyone against Teemo. Vote pro. I tried harder and I used fair arguments, not employing dumb unfair rules with no warning whatsoever in order to win. Con had to use a dirty hand-trick, and that is why he will lose. Cheaters never win.Good debate.