Insulting someone by calling them a liar is materially different from other insults

As I stated before:I immediately move to dismiss any and all arguments, assertions, and conclusions that CON proffers in this debate. This is because, as stated in round #1, CON is a liar, and so the truth value of any statement CON makes cannot be determined. There is no one to say otherwise, and as was specific in round #1, this debate is to be judged on the basis of Tabula Rasa, meaning that whatever is said in the debate is to be taken as prima facie true...except for anything CON says. Since CON has no valid arguments, CON has not offered a valid rebuttal against my round #2 case. Extend all of my arguments. I've made it clear that even the simplest of assertions such as 1+1=2 cannot be determined to be true if uttered by a liar. They can only be determined to be true if uttered by someone else. It is also implied in the rules listed in round #1 that a liar is not someone that lies only once. It is someone for whom the truth value of any assertion, argument, and conclusion cannot be determined.Perjury is a serious offense. Perjury applies to someone who has lied only once under oath. A liar by definition would commit perjury by uttering any assertion, argument, or conclusion under oath. In order for a liar to avoid committing perjury, a liar would have to be completely silent. Even attempts to "plead the fifth" would be taken as lies. If any question is asked to the liar, the liar will either have to commit perjury, or be held in contempt of the court by not answering. The liar cannot win.---I will now answer some questions brought to my attention."Can a question be a lie?""Can an instruction be a lie?"We could get quite philosophical here, that anyone using language or semantics is making arguments and conclusions...after all, the statement "Write down 1+1=2" assumes the English language and mathematics as givens, and concludes that "Write down 1+1=2" has a certain, comprehensible meaning. If we want to get at this philosophical level, then even questions and instructions uttered by a liar cannot be validated for truth value, and so CON would be left with no means to communicate.What about this debate then? Did CON actually accept this debate? Does CON even exist for the purposes of this debate? Does this debate even exist? I would say yes to all of these questions, after all, I am evidently debating CON - just that CON is a liar, and thus cannot make valid arguments. CON did accept this debate by pressing the "accept" button, regardless of CON following the rules in round #1."Wouldn't you always keep in mind the possibility that a debater might be - if not lying outright - then exaggerating, misrepresenting or simply mistaken about the truth?"Yes. IMHO one should always keep that in mind. The key though is that if someone is not a liar, then their statements CAN be validated. Verification simply is not possible if the intent to tell the truth simply is not there, which of course is the definition of a liar. We would be unable to determine if the liar is actually utilizing basic assumptions such as the English language as givens. Liars simply cannot communicate anything valid, or truthful. This is how I understand the word "liar" to mean in civilized discourse. This is why the charge of lying is so taboo in most cultures. Joe Wilson apologized and was publicly rebuked by Congress not because he made an outburst, but because his outburst consisted of only two words: "YOU LIE!"http://tinyurl.com...http://www.youtube.com...---I will answer further questions in the comments section. As it is, this "debate" is over. Again, CON has made no valid arguments in this debate, and will not be able to make any valid arguments in this debate. I could say that "Insulting someone by calling them a liar is materially different from other insults" is true simply because I say so, which is the weakest of arguments, but because CON cannot argue against it, I would meet BoP with such a statement and win this debate.