I will not break a rule

I will refer all voters to rule 8 of this debate: "8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The loser is the first person to break a rule." So, let's establish an order of operations: CON Rule #11 (violated in round 1) PRO Rule #24 (violated in round 3) PRO Rule #25 (violated in round 3) CON Rule #17 (violated in round 3) Con conceded the he "can't really disagree with violation #2." Therefore, any and all violations after Rule #17 don't matter (including the multitude I am bound to make in this round) because CON will have already lost. As a note, CON might point out Rule #23. I will concede that it refers to me and that I violated it by typing 'definately.' However, this violation occured in Round 4, coming after the guaranteed violation of Rule #17. ====== Rule #11 ====== Assuming I win this argument, nothing else is relevant as this was the first rule broken. My opponent's rebuttal was nothing but a semantics game. "Pro. typed both. "' have not violated a rule' and. 'He was violated multiple' without. violating the. rule" I was not, and am not, allowed to type them as a stand alone sentence. I am forced to quote them as part of a larger sentence, as I did in Round 4; or I am forced to type them with periods placed in sporadically as Pro did. My ability to discuss rules has been violated in some way (large or small, it doesn't matter) so CON broke Rule #11. ========= Rules 24 & 25 ========= I will apologize for misconstruing his arguments last round. I thought he was saying something along the lines of 'these are just statements, not rules.' I understand his argument now, but still find it invalid. "Even the fact that the probable loser of this debate personally wants marijuana to be given to all species or animal, including iguanas, that is neither making rules or discussing the violation of the rules." My opponent, in his own argument, refutes himself. He, in the above quote, 1) shows that he wants iguana marijuana (he didn't even have to as I have not yet found a dying iguana in the desert) 2) discusses a rules violation He has just shown one of numerous ways to incorporate iguana marijuana into his argument without violating Rule #4. He also could have posted it as a quasi-related dependent clause in any of his rules (as I have multiple times to maintain proper end-rhyme) or posted it in any other rules discussion. The same applies to Rule #25, in that he could have at any time used an epithet to refer to me "Blue-eyed PRO" as well as any appositive phrase "...PRO, whose eyes are as blue as the sea,..." during his discussion or violation of rules. ====== Rule #25 ====== I gave a 2 part rebuttal to this: "1. Paraphrasing is possible. There is no reason the wording must be exact, just that I must be told that I've got a smokin' build. 2. As the conjunction used is 'or' and not 'and', the 2nd compliment could instead be utilized. I could thrice be made aware of my beautiful eyes." My opponent addresses #1, which is fine; I'll ignore that. Unfortunately, my opponent has completely conceded the 2nd argument, leaving it unaddressed in his last speech. He could have simply, 3 times, referenced my beautiful eyes because I phrased the rule with 'or', not 'and.' My opponent never once refutes this claim. He might try in his last speech, but you oughtn't vote on it as it would be a new argument to which I cannot respond. ===== Rule 17 ===== CON stated that "The probable loser of the debate can't really disagree with violation #2." If you've gotten this far finding no rules to be broken, you vote for me right here. ======= Conclusion ======= CON clearly violated rule #11, which warrants you voting PRO. However, if you don't believe that, you'll note that I had violated no rule prior to CON violating rule #17 which he concedes to, so you'll still vote for me there. I've violated many rules after that, including misspelling 'definately' and violating pretty much every rule in this speech, but it doesn't matter, because according to Rule 8, what matters is who violated a rule first, which clearly was CON.