I will not break a rule {NEW MEMBER TOURNAMENT FINALS}

OverviewAt this point there is no purpose in following the standard format of the debate. It is probably clear that both of us have or will break at least one rule. As per rule 3, whoever breaks a rule first loses. As such, my focus is going to be on defending myself from the original 3 accusations he made in round 2, and advancing the ones I had made. Any violations after this point simply won't matter as one of us will win the debate on this issue. Why? Because obviously had a broken a rule I would lose. If I haven't, well rule 28 (the one posted in round 1, not round 2) states that the PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break. Thus, if I put adequate defense on his accusations I win by proxy of rule 28 (for future reference whenever I say rule 28 I mean the rule pusted in round 1).Rules Broken (Con)Rule 26: All rules made by the PRO must apply to both the PRO and CON.My opponent has not done enough work in the last round to make his accusation against my rule 26 strong enough to prove a violation. He's actually just resorted to misconstruing my argument because he has realized that he hasn't got a legitimate claim. Here is what he's saying:1. Rule 26 makes PRO's rules apply to both PRO and CON.2. Rules 11-13 do not apply to both PRO and CON.C. PRO cannot uphold Rule 26.Here is what I'm saying:1. Rule 26 make PRO's rules made AFTER the enforcement of rule 26 apply to both PRO and CON.2. Rules 11-13 are not regulated by rule 26.C. PRO can uphold Rule 26.Now, as a judge you have to choose which debater is right in terms of how this rule functions. I gave you justifications via the framework rules and grammar to defend my side. He claims that my poor choice of words it is safe to assume the rule implicates those made in rule 1. This is simply not the case.1. Foundation Rule 9 makes it so that rules only apply in the following round. I couldn't make a rule that applies to round 1 even if I wanted to.2. I show that, "Made can be representative of the future tense in combination with passive voice, I,e, a great wonder will be made, We will default to my interpretation of made applying to the future because once again Rule 9 states that all rules only apply in future rounds, Thus, it is more likely to be true that made is being used in the future tense than the past as it is nonsensical to impose a rule that is outdated once it comes into effect,"My opponent DOES NOT refute this argument. I give you grammatical justification for my side. He provides a warrantless assertion.3. I never said that Rule 26 overrides Rules 11-13. In fact, IF it could actually apply to Rules 11-13 then it would simply be an expansion of the rule rather than a contradiction.4. It it clear that none of my rules come into effect until the following round through the comments section. Before we started this debate my opponent wanted rules to take effect the round they were created and I objected. That's why Rule 9 was edited to make it so that they apply in the following round. Why in the hell would I make a rule apply within the round it was created AFTER I argue that it would be bad for the debate?Rule 27: The PRO may not make my rules apply to myselfThe debate over Rule 27 is rather simple as well. He tries to claim that this conflicts with rule 12. There are 2 key areas of this dispute that clearly show how I am not forcing such a violations.1. The most obvious contradiction between our understanding of how each rule functions comes through the definition of instruct that we provide. You should prefer my definition to his because of the principle of common usage. Definitions are listed in the dictionary in order of common usage. Thus, the earlier on the list each definition appears, the more common it is for that definition to be accepted as accurate, and used accordingly. My definition was the first listed and his was the second. Thus, my definition is more universally accepted as correct. Words only have value insofar as we can attribute common meaning to them. If we rely on conflicting minority definitions it would be impossible to communicate; therefore, we need to accept the definition that it most commonly used, which is mine. Also, we interpreting rules violations we must advocate the most commonly used definitions because it sets fair limits on the debate. Once we say it is okay to reject the most commonly used definition we say it's to use ANY definition. Why stop at the second most commonly used? What gives legitimacy to any definition at all? We would be able to manipulate the meaning of any word we want to fabricate any violation we want. It is impossible to objectvely evaluate a debate like this. To keep any sense of legitimacy in this debate at all we have to accept the most commonly used definitions as preferable.2. Cross-apply my argument in defense of Rule 26. My Rule 27 would not come into effect until round 2, thus would not violate Rules 11-13.Rule 28: The PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break.I quite frankly fail to understand what straws my opponent is attempting to grasp. He claims that he is unable to discuss rule violations that I did not commit... Well duh... He only ever had the ability to discuss rule violations that I did commit. There really is no clear violation that would grant my opponent the win.Rules Broken (Pro)Rule 28: The PRO may not accuse me of breaking a rule that I did not break.My opponent's only defense is that this rule is null and void. Evidently if you, like myself, do not see any ground within my opponent's claim against Rule 28, I win through its enforcement.Rule 13: CON must use a comma instead of a full stop at the end of every sentence he makes.My opponent's argument is basically that dictionaries are too shallow! He obviously does not understand how my argument interacts with his. He claims that I am not held to use perfect grammar. However, his rule 13 clearly binds me to the following:1. I must use sentences.2. I must end all sentence with commas.C. I must use sentences that end with commas.However, I've shown that it is impossible to end a sentence with a comma. Sentences must end with exclamation points, questions marks, or periods. Once you end it with a comma it is no longer a sentence; it becomes a fragment.UnderviewAll that matters in this debate is finding out who broke a rule first. I will list the rules in the order they should be evaluated. Once you find a violation, that is where you vote.1. Rule 13 (CON Wins): This was posted FIRST in the debate. Thus, if it is impossible for me to uphold it, I win.2. Rules 26-28 (PRO Wins): These rules were posted in the CON's round 1, after Rule 13 but before, thus moving them down in order of priority.3. Rule 28 (CON Wins): PRO accuses PRO's rules 26-28 of being in violation of other rules. Thus the PRO's accusation come prior. However, if Rule 28 is not in violation of other rules, it is still in play. This means that the CON wins as the PRO would have had to of broken Rule 28 in his earlier accusations. However, this still does not matter if my rules 26 or 27 are in violation of other rules.