I will not contradict myself

I again assure him that the numbering system isn't meant to independently draw contradictions. Rather, its meant to draw his attentions and direct him away from the real plan. First, in reference to my last question in round 3, I'd argue that my opponent is obligated to at least give some type of answer to every quesiton I give. The reason being that if its acceptable to just not answer any questions, that would be an easy avenue for my opponent to not contradict himself. So while he did say that the issue of not answering questions should be left to the voters, I urge them to accept my argument that he is indeed obligated to answer any and all questions asked of him. Previous contradictionsI'm dropping the first 2 arguments. They were backup plans in case the following contradictions never materialized. New Contradictions1. Last round I asked my opponent what his response was to the third question asked of him in round 1. He says it was "I do not know what cake you are talking about". However, this question "Is the cake a lie? " was not the third question I asked. His answer would be correct if the first question I asked was the one about his full name. But look a little closer. The very first question I asked in the round was at the beginning paragraph, where I asked "But this round only refers to round 1, right"? Apparently my opponent did not think that counted as a question, but it clearly ends with a question mark and asks for an explanantion. So that was in reality the first question asked. Therefore, going in a linear order, the third question I actually asked was "Is morality subjective? ", to which his response was " I cannot prove this one way or the other". This is contradictory to his response of question 8 last round, where he claims his response was "I do not know what cake you are talking about".2. My opponent did not answer question 7 in my last round, which I argued previously is grounds for voting Con. He probably didn't answer it because he didn't see it, as it was hidden with invisible text. But if you go back to my round 3 and highlight everything directly under my third paragraph, you will clearly see that I asked a question my opponent did not respond to. There were no rules against using invisible font, so this should be a clear reason to go Con :)3. Con said in round 1 that we are only allowed "10 questions per round". Notice how this doesn't specify that it only applies to me. If my opponent brings up more than 10 questions he should be contradicting the rule as well. In response to my asking "Do you have any questions for me? " he responded by saying yes and asking me three seperate questions. This brings the total number of questions in his round from 10 to 13, which is a contradiction of his rule 2. 4. My opponent originally says he is not a Utilitarian. But in response to my asking of where to bury people in a plane crash, he says that he wouldn't bury the survivors because they're still alive. This shows that he indeed does value human life and wants to prevent it from being undermined, which is a Utilitarian ideal. This contradicts his original claim that he doesn't believe in Utilitarianism. I'm going to leave it at that. I don't think I need any more questions at the moment. I'll let my opponent give his responses and then summarize in my final round. Good luck.