I will not break a rule.

((The regulation I used against wjmelements was worded completely differently. "No," can be interpreted in multiple ways. #11 cannot. He must do whatever he restricts me from doing. He doesn't follow the restriction. He does the opposite. It's fairly simple. My opponent may need logic to type, yes. However, he does not need to use logic as a source to make rules. Using a source on this site would involve citing where he learned what he used, or explaining his logic step-by-step. Using logic in his head is not the same as sourcing said logic. When I listed what qualified as a source for my rule, my opponent did not qualify as his own source. Therefore, he does not contradict with #18. You forced knowledge into my head. Knowledge forced into somebody's head doesn't have to be true at all. My opponent uses a source to back his argument about burden of proof. By #21, because he broke #18, his statement is ignored He also broke #22 by saying, "Your rule contradicts this, so it is null." This furthers the need to ignore his statement. My opponent has not been able to prove that "olgjoyeq" is not in any official dictionary. Therefore, it is ignored. My opponent claims to have kept up the assumption for a few seconds, but cannot prove it. Therefore, because he has burden of proof, the dispute goes to me. #18 is not void. It is valid. My opponent cannot absolutely disprove the following: I have been in Iraq. I have been on an umiaq. I have been shot by a tranq gun. I beat Shaq in Mario Kart Wii. I have found "olgjoyeq" in an official dictionary. Furthermore, #s 32, 33, and 34 are illegible. They cannot be read as sentences. My opponent will say that he is following his own restriction in #30, but this is false, because he must do the opposite of his restrictions, and I may have beat Shaq in said racing game. Rules that cannot be read have no effect; therefore, they are null. Rules #36 and #37 are nullified by Rule #15: "15. mongoose must include a clause in each of his rules that allows for the rule not to take effect, given a certain situation outside of Debate.org." My being the instigator is a situation in Debate.org, not outside of Debate.org. Rule #35 is also nullified. The definition of "word": "a unit of language that native speakers can identify" http://www.wordreference.com... My opponent is completely unable to prove that there is a real language that uses the word, "psodfsajjfporijeq." The word does not show up on Google. There are no native speakers who speak this language. I know that my opponent's native language is English. My opponent has the burden of proof of showing that his native language is not English. So, here's a list of the rules that my opponent has broken: 12. mongoose has conceded this. He has multiple sentences that lack words ending in Q outside of his arguments. 14. mongoose has not proven that he has assumed the clause in Rule #14 to be true. 15. mongooses rules #36 and #37 both involve situations that are not outside Debate.org. 18. mongoose has used multiple online sources. 22. mongoose used the word "is," which is a conjugation of the word "be." "Your rule contradicts this, so it is null.")) 23. mongoose may not post anything in the Comments section of this debate. 24. mongoose's burden of proof is absolute: he must prove beyond doubt that there is no possibility, no matter how slight, of him being wrong to win any argument. 25. mongoose's rules may not affect mongeese in any way whatsoever.