I will not contradict myself

Rule breaking/Unfinished proof:"I simply sated[sic]...the rules states[sic] i have the right to explain if the answer wouldnt[sic] be completely true."I contest this point. The rules specifically state "Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.", not Yes, No, or an explanation as to why one answer would be completely correct. There is a requirement that states you must say why both answers are incorrect. My opponent stated why one was incorrect. Implications or not, he must state both. " Precedent set in almost every previous debate of this kind allows for this."I require a rule citation, or this is an ambiguous case which favours the party which agreed to the rules, not they who formed them. " If I wernt[sic] allowed to ask for clarification to questions I didnt[sic] understand, the sanctity of this debate would be destroyed."You could simply say "as neither yes nor no would be a correct answer due to the fact that I do not understand the question, I shall withdraw judgement, as I do not know if either answer is true or not" or "I do not know" could be added as a correct response to the ruleset, or "I do not know, therefore both may be correct, therefore both may be incorrect, therefore neither answer would be correct". Or any answer, really. However, if there is no rule citation still, I reject the argument from "sanctity of debate" or "precedent set" unless defended through rules given in this debate.Therefore, I extend all previous challenges. Contradictions "Do you base your judgements on the real world? Yes"This shows my opponent is an empiricist, placing judgement in the real and tested but not the thought process: This is called the empiricist thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience."Are you a 'rationalist' person?Yes"This shows my opponent is a rationalist, placing judgement a priori, or in the thought process but not the tested. This is called the rationalist thesis: Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions.These are basic requirements of the two positions (http://plato.stanford.edu...) (of which a dictionary alone is a poor source; the equivalent of learning about any issue purely via dictionary)The two positions are contradictory. Therefore, my opponent is being contradictory. Therefore I claim he has lost as per rule rule 10 on this ground.Also, my opponent answered that he does not answer rhetorical questions (A28) and said he can read (A26). Q26 was a rhetorical queston. He answered it. There are examples of where this is an obvious rhetorical question( http://www.swtor.com...) meaning my opponent has contradicted himself, and I claim he has lost on rule 10 on this ground.I also claim that Q29 was a Yes/No question. The fact that it does not follow similar form of yes/no questions doesn't change much. However, since he said "please", I'll change the question to : 29. Do you respond to questions?==================================================================================== 31. Have you drank before?32. Are you literate?33. Can you spell all words that you know? Meaning, of the words that you know, can you spell them?34. Have you ever revised before an exam?35. Doth thou protest?36. Doth thou protest too much?37. Are you familiar with the works of Shakespeare?38. What devil was't that thus hath cozen'd you at hoodman-blind? 39. Doth thou continue Once more unto the breach, dear friend, once more?40. Would you say that I am showing off?