Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

My opponent starts off by stating that my third ruling allows me not have the opportunity of creating new rules. However, according to the wording of that rule, I am allowed to reject the opportunity of creating new rules during my round. This is due to the word "may." Since my opponent has not provided a valid reason as to how I can violate the seventh rule, my first answer on this matter is to be accepted. Nexts, YL presents a strawman through suggesting that I am attempting to justify my loss, but as you can see, I have not done this. Exploiting the fact that my opponent needed to change his argument shows the weakness of my opponent's case. As far as 4.5 contradicting my second rule in the debate, my opponent's response on this matter is erroneous. Rounds and rules being plural don't imply what my opponent is talking about. Take note of the following sentences: The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rule in rounds 2-4 The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rules in round 2-4 The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rule in round 2-4. Noting our English language, none of these sentences make sense. Rules refers to there being more than one rule (as in 110 rules). Rounds refers to my rule's reference to more than one round. Thus, I was clearly applying this rule to multiple rounds. Now if I had said something along the lines of "The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rules in each of his rounds, my opponent would have a legitimate argument. Therefore, my opponent's 4.5 rule is contradictory as I would not be able to present 109 rules per round while abiding by the rule which I had already set up. Therefore, I am justified in dismissing it. As far as this business about "can" goes, it still contradicts. This is due to the fact that I refer to me being able to introduce a MAXIMUM (in other words, I am limited to a certain amount) of 110 rules in the time period of 3 rounds. Indeed, can is a matter of choice, and I have the choice and making as many rules as I desire as long as it doesn't exceed 110 rules within the time frame of 3 rounds. Any way you take it, my opponent's 4.5 rule contradicts the second rule I introduced during round 2. As far as violations go, my opponent ignores the fact he conceded to violating the rules in the previous round. Yraelz: "(Response 16) Which means that since the person contending has broken a ruling of far greater importance than any rulings that I have broken . . ." Not only that, but I exposed my opponent on rules which he violated previous to the rules I created in round 2 during my round 3 arguments. Since my opponent has not responded, he concedes to having violated my 177 character rule and concedes to have violated the sixth rule that he had presented during round 1. In short, claiming that he has not violated any rules during this debate is anything BUT true. And of course, my opponent has violated all of my most recent rulings. As for violating my first rule presented in round one, my opponent overlooks the word next to can; he overlooks the word "ONLY." In other words, I stated that my opponent's only options in presenting rules was to present two rules; my opponent only had one option. Since he has ONLY presented one, he has violated my rule. Closing Statements: As you can see, my opponent has not proven the resolution; I have not violated any rules and have certainly not dropped any of the arguments which my opponent has made. On the contrary, my opponent has not only admitted to violating rules (which he even attempts to deny during round 4), but has also dropped several of my arguments that exposed him on his violations. Thus, it's fairly obvious that I have won both the contest and the debate. With that said, at the very least (assuming you buy into my opponent's case), my opponent would still not have maintained the resolution. My opponent has admitted to violating the rules (so there's not a reason to believe that he hasn't violated the rules). If you are to believe that I've violated the rules, you are to (at the very least) consider the contest portion a tie. If that is the case, I haven't lost. Since I haven't lost, my opponent has not upheld his side of the resolution and thus loses the actual debate. However, there is absolutely isn't a reason for you to believe that I have violated any of the rules so this isn't an issue. At any rate, vote CON. Thanks for the debate!