Choose the topic

My opponent's first claim is true,but is not on the grounds of this debate. So, the first claim of my opponent while true should not be influencing the decision. (unless my case is fully rebutted)“P1: Elephants are unable to speak and typeP2: This has been typed by meC1: It is impossible for me to be physically referred to as an elephant."My counter: I never said he wasn't a human, I said he was classified as an elephant due to the fact that he is a Republican.Rebuttals:Claim: “P1: My opponent does not know me.P2: Insults are personal.C1: My opponent is not justified in insulting me"Counter-Claim: I have not made an insulting remark in my caseCounter-Evidence: Read my caseCounter-Warrant: This ought to be regarded as irrelevantClaim: “P1: Based on our limited knowledge of each other, we are similar.C1: By insulting me, my opponent insults himself.”Counter-Claim: IrrelevancyCounter-Evidence: First, I never insulted anybody…Second, just because two people are similar does not mean one cannot insult another. If I were to make a Holocaust joke, I would insult my opponent (most likely), but it would not make me insane as my opponent says, nor would I be insulting myself.On top of this, look at a source provided for that paragraph link 3 discusses an unprovable idea"When suppressed concerns and feelings, such as lack of self-esteem; self-defeating thoughts and behaviours; guilt; and anger, for example, are not treated or dealt with, the person uses insults to unleash anger" (link 3 discusses projection, releasing your emotions on another person, but there is no proof that we do that, as that is an ego defense mechanism and there is no proof that Freud's theory of Id, Ego, and Super Ego is true)and Link 4 is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with insanity or insultingCounter-Warrant: This is irrelevantSo, just look at my opponent’s argument, all strike through portions of his argument are things that ought to be disregarded orare irrelevantAn elephant is an animal [1]. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an elephant to learn English and it is equally difficult for an elephant to learn English [2]. Since it is impossible for an elephant to physically speak or write it is therefore impossible for me to be an elephant. I will now put this into a premise and conclusion based argument:P1: Elephants are unable to speak and typeP2: This has been typed by meC1: It is impossible for me to be physically referred to as an elephant.Assuming that we are referring to the argument in an offensive sense (ie. calling somebody an elephant as an insult), them I am also not an elephant.(my argument is not offensive thus this is irrelevant) Since my opponent does not know me, he has no justified reason in which he can refer to me as an elephant. My opponent is a believer in God and of an Abrahamic faith (which I am too), so we can find similarities with each other (on top of our age). This means that if he calls me an elephant in an insulting way (I did not, so this is irrelevant), then he essentially insults my characteristics/beliefs and by doing this he insults himself [3]. No sane person insults themselves (as I did not make an insult, this is irrelevant)[4](source provided is unrelated to topic). I will now put this into a premise and conclusion based structure similarly to how I did so previously:P1: My opponent does not know me.P2: Insults are personal.C1: My opponent is not justified in insulting me.Read Rebuttal 1 as well as my explanation of the refutations of the paragraph.P1: Based on our limited knowledge of each other, we are similar.C1: By insulting me, my opponent insults himself.Read Rebuttal 2 as well as my explanation of the refutations of the paragraph[1]https://www.google.co.uk......;[2]http://www.findingdulcinea.com...[3]http://gulfnews.com...[4]http://www.mind.org.uk... (source provided is unrelated to topic)I cannot refute the beginning of his argument as it is true...However,his second paragraph can be refuted... A: I never made an insult thus his second part is irrelevant.B: His sources are unrelated or do not existC: IRL his argument does not make sense... "Second, just because two people are similar does not mean one cannot insult another. If I were to make a Holocaust joke, I would insult my opponent (most likely), but it would not make me insane (defined:the state of being seriously mentally ill)as my opponent says ("No sane person insults themselves"), nor would I be insulting myself."As, my opponent must fully rebut my arguments and prove that he is not a figurative elephant (which he has not yet) and I must rebut his arguments and prove that he is a figurative elephant (as I have)Therefore, I urge a con vote