Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

(My opponent claims that he could not create new rules that would not restrict my abilities through logical contradictions. He just needs to think more creatively. He could have copied his pre-existing rules and used them again, which would not restrict me any further than I already was, which would comply with the rule. Therefore, Rule #27 is perfectly legit. Please don't argue that something is impossible until you've thought through it multiple times. "That doesn't change the fact that I can break the rule multiple times." When you break the rule the first time, you shatter it into pieces that cannot be broken further. If you seem to have broken a rule multiple times, it doesn't matter, because once you break a rule, you ignore it, and it holds no boundaries on you. You already broke it, so you might as well enjoy your new freedom of not having to obey that rule. With a governmental law, yes, you can break it more than once, because they say that they can punish you multiple times. However, this debate only punishes you once for each rule broken, not for each incident that would break a rule. Rules are pass/fail. There is no double fail or triple fail. Shattered rules can still void rules, but they can't be further broken. My rules are not all voided. Rule #16 is still a violation of #27. I can no longer use as a rule: "ToastOfDestiny does not have the power to establish the truth in this debate without need for proof, although this power dissipates outside of the debate." Rule #14 says that ToastOfDestiny only has to vote for me if I forfeit. However, if he decides to be a voter, he must vote for the victor. If I forfeit, he would be the victor. Therefore, he would then vote for himself, contradicting with Rule #14, or vote for me, contradicting Rule #8. Rule #8 nullifies Rule #14. Alright, then. You don't have to follow the rules. You still break them when you make the choice to. You can't avoid that part. #29 does not at all violate #11. ToastOfDestiny can still discuss and debate rule violations. I'm just going to interpret whatever he says to however I please. Rule #29 is NOT null and void. #30 is perfectly possible to follow. At least, it was at the time of its creation. ToastOfDestiny then decided to make up an excuse for how Toasted could not be an adult. He should have used his creativity in the ballad instead. Man - An adult male person Adult - An animal that is past adolescence Toasted can be a 17-year-old man. ToastOfDestiny just has to make him one. Toasted could be a wizard. Wizards reach adulthood by age 17. Rule #30 is not null and void, and has instead been broken. #31 is easy, too. The phrase is perfectly iambic. now DINE said I as E-nid WON a SLICE Rule #31 is not null and void, and is instead broken. My opponent's definitions are irrelevant. mongeese has the power to define words. mongeese's definitions have power over those of ToastOfDestiny, by Rule #29. Furthermore, the clarifying clause was clarified even further my mongeese. Rule #17 violates Rule #27. I can no longer use as a rule: "Mongeese performing actions in his mind or some other world which is not reality will not for the purpose of this debate suffice as mongeese being able to perform actions, regardless of the circumstances." Rule #17 is therefore voided by the very rule it sought to tear down. Rule #18 really can't do anything without Rule #17.) 32. Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. ToastOfDestiny may use powers that he has given himself through his rules if and only if he only uses his powers for the good of mankind. 33. "In a regal age ran I." In Round 4, ToastOfDestiny must post all of his rules and ballads in Old English. 34. "Was it a rat I saw?" In Round 4, ToastOfDestiny must write a ballad in iambic pentameter about a boy who, at some point in the story, thought he saw a rat. The story must use at least 4,000 characters, and must include Odysseus, Harry Potter, Link, Mario, Special Agent Gibbs, Dr. House, Ethan Frome, the man in the moon, and George Lopez as characters. The ballad is fictional. Each character must have one iambic line about him in the ballad. Definitions: 17. suffice - not work 17. approaches - quotes 19. removed - used 19. reword - bow down to 32. for the good of mankind - only to benefit others, never benefitting himself in any way 33. Old English - http://en.wikipedia.org... 34. ballad and iambic pentameter have the same definitions from #30. 34. Odysseus - http://en.wikipedia.org... 34. Harry Potter - http://en.wikipedia.org...(character) 34. Link - http://en.wikipedia.org...(The_Legend_of_Zelda) 34. Mario - http://en.wikipedia.org... 34. Special Agent Gibbs - http://en.wikipedia.org... 34. Dr. House - http://en.wikipedia.org... 34. Ethan Frome - http://en.wikipedia.org... 34. the man in the moon - http://en.wikipedia.org... 34. George Lopez - http://en.wikipedia.org...