Neither Debater Shall Break a Rule

. http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... -Thank you for showing us why your rule #27 is void. I cannot make a rule without you shooting it down. -I apologize for rule #22's redundancy, it was to make redefining my rule a royal pain. -But the English is old. English is a pretty old language. -My ability to discuss being untouchable was established before your ability to define, and by the foundation rules therefore takes precedence. -It may seem like this, but remember, I have the ability to establish the truth, and the truth is I do not benefit. Here's another truth: "Truth" means "conformity with fact or reality". One more truth: my truths conform with reality. -I've had to say this many times - the rule means that any rules you make can only be broken once. You keep missing the point. Let me illustrate: if you posted "ToastOfDestiny must never use the letter 'h' in his rules" this would be voided, as I can put 'h' in two or more rules, therefore breaking your rule more than once. -This is irrelevant now; you have not forfeited. -Again, if you apply your rule to my ability to discuss, your rule is voided. Don't try to mask your actions by rewording them. Because of rule #29, you can decide the meaning of my discussion. You are applying your rule to my ability to discuss. I'm not contending the fact that I can discuss in the literal sense. While my rule does protect my ability to post words, it also prevents my ability to post words from being touched. On to the ballads. Mongeese bade me write two ballads, one in R3 and another in R4. He never commanded me to post them. He said "in R3" I must write a ballad, and "in R4" I must write a ballad. I wrote said ballads during (in) said rounds. I'll post them now. Anyway, here are the iambic ballads: "six THOU-sand CHAR-act-ERS do MA-ny THINGS" and "four THOU-sand CHAR-act-ERS do MA-ny THINGS". The two ballads are in iambic pentameter. One contains 6,000 characters, the other 4,000. Using the device 'ambiguity', I encompass all of his requirements. -Fine. See above. I concede this point. -Read rule #1. If I post a rule after you, regardless of whether it has been posted before, it is bound by your rules. Therefore, if I repost a rule saying "put palindromic sentences in your rules" this violates your rule #27, as I am restricting you. Mongeese posts two rules, saying they comply with rule #27. "This rule cannot restrict mongeese. " and "This rule has no power". If I post those rules, I deny mongeese to say "That rule has power" and "That rule binds mongeese/me". Even if mongeese posted those counter-rules, they wouldn't make logical sense, in which case I deny him the ability to logically counter his rules. -However, the truth is, despite any opposition that mongeese brings up, I really do not benefit. It may seem like I benefit, but this isn't the truth. <35. In Round 5, ToastOfDestiny must use at least 6,000 plus signs (+) in his argument. > Alright. At the end of the debate, if voters quantify how much I am winning by using plus signs, I am "at least 6,000 plus signs (+)" ahead (plus signs do not refer to individual rule breaks). This debate should result in my count increasing by 1 (this is synecdoche, referring to the whole by a part. I am referring to 6k plus signs by mentioning a part of them). I have used "at least 6,000 plus signs (+)" as mongeese has commanded me to. <36. ToastOfDestiny may not write lists> Void. It prevents me from writing rules 23-25, contradicting the foundation rules. Finally, mongeese did grant me the ability to make definitions more accurate with sources. Therefore, my definitions have weight. Rule-Break Summary 1) Foundation rule #7 ". .. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule". -Mongeese breaks this with his rule #27. He says that I may never make rules that restrict his ability to do anything whatsoever. Under this rule, I cannot make a rule that restricts mongeese from doing anything at all. No matter what I do, he is restricted. Since there is no room for me to follow the rule, it is voided by the foundation rules. Even if I post rules like mongeese provides, I restrict him from logically countering them. Reposting doesn't work either, as 2) My rule # 11 "All rules created by my opponent can apply to my ability to make rules, but not my ability to discuss or debate violations of rules. " -Mongeese breaks this rule with rule #29. He interprets and defines (under his definition, chooses the meaning of) everything I say, including my discussion. Mongeese makes all sorts of claims, about how I can still discuss and how he's just changing what the voter thinks. What he deliberately leaves out is his application of the rule. He uses his rule ON my discussion. He is applying his rule TO my discussion. His rule is voided, and he has broken rule #11 throughout the debate. Rule #11 does not mean that I must retain the ability to discuss, but that he cannot touch my ability to discuss. 3) My Rule # 12 "Any rules created by my opponent can only result in one infraction from me (i. e. any rules they make can only be broken once). ". -Mongeese claims I am merely restating the foundation rules. I'm not limiting how many rules I can break, but I am limiting mongeese's rulemaking power. Rule #12 clearly states that any rule mongeese makes can only be broken once. If he makes a rule that I can break more than once, that rule is clearly voided. Rule"26 (I can't mention time), Rule #27(I can't restrict him), Rule #28 (animal videos), and Rule #36 (I can't use lists) are all void by this rule. For example, I can mention 'time' many times. 4) My rule # 13 (the palindrome rule). -Mongeese's rule #36 (I can't use lists) does not use a logical palindrome. How does the phrase "nab a stiff" relate to the rest of his rule? Finally, my rules (remember, rule #27 is void, so my rules can restrict mongeese). 23. Any rules which mongeese has voided (be they his or mine) any time in this debate are to be counted as rule-breaks. If this rule is voided, its voiding counts as a rule-break. If ToastOfDestiny has voided any of mongeese's rules (shown then to be nullified) this does not count as ToastOfDestiny breaking a rule. 24. With the exception of palindromic sentences, mongeese's sentences must be at least two words long and must contain at least two misspelled words. Mongeese may use up to 15 one word sentences. 25. Rules 38-40 can only affect the following subjects: profile pictures, the 'Belief' section in user profiles, and the Science forum, and cannot force ToastOfDestiny to concede or suggest that he has lost this debate. Phew. This was probably the most intense debate I've had on DDO.