The Paradox of the Stone is sound

I'm a little perplexed by my opponent's acceptance round post. As I have understood the way debating works on this website, the first round generally consists of the words "I accept". While I, myself, do enjoy being particularly verbose at certain times, even I doubt my ability to stretch those two miniscule words into paragraphs and videos of response. Regardless, as per the rules I set forth in my first round. If my opponent were to want to use those arguments, he may reiterate them or simply reference them in the rounds to come, but they will simply be viewed as one overly-extended "I accept" message. With that being said, lets get started with the debate!The Paradox of the StoneThe argument itself is simple, and I will outline it, then explain each part in detail and analyze it's validity, then respond to common objections (hue hue hue). A) If God Exists, He Is OmnipotentPretty self-evident, especially since I specified to an all-powerful god within the context of the resolution. I won't expend much of my limited time here.B) If God is Omnipotent, He can create a stone so large that even He could not lift it This is pretty self-explanatory, but allow me to extrapolate. If God is omnipotent, meaning capable of all things, it only follows that there is no such action that is impossible for him to do (insert multiple biblical verses where he parts oceans and moves mountains, etc.). This would be inclusive to the act of creating a stone so large that He would be unable to lift it. At least, hypotheticaly, that is true. But the point itself is fairly simple: if god can do anything, there's no reason to believe he couldn't do this thing.This is where things devolve into the paradox of the argument. I will denote parts a and b to expand upon the different paths that the paradox takes, each refuting an all-powerful God.A1) If God Creates a stone so large even He cannot lift, then there exists something that he cannot do.Fairly simple. If he creates an object he cannot lift, then something exists that he cannot lift. That being the stone in this particular example, but let's not get bogged down by semantics here.B1) If God cannot create a stone so large even He cannot lift, then there exists something he cannot do.This, as well, is fairly straight-forward. If God cannot create a stone so large even He cannot lift, then there exists a task that even God cannot do. Logically consistent.Grand Finale de Conclusions: If There exists a task God cannot do, then God cannot be omnipotentGiven that omnipotent means capable of all things, if God is not capable of all things, then that pretty much de-rails that train of thought, wouldn't you agree?Conclusion Part Two: If God is not omni-potent, an omni-potent God cannot existThis pretty much is confirmed from everything above.Given that pretty much all of the points of the argument revolve around that single previous point being valid (that being the second point), the most common place to attack this argument is there. The most common attack is "Why would God care to?". The problem with this response in relation to this resolution is that this point is highly irrelevant. The resolution is not whether God wants to or not, but rather does he have the potential to do it. My not wanting to do a triple-backflip does not preclude my ability to do a triple-backflip (although given the fact that I cannot remember the last time I excericized outside of lifting heavy things in my line of work, I doubt I could but that's only well beyond the actual point).The second most-common response is that the entire existence of a "stone so large that God cannot lift it" is a logical contradiction, and thusly not something that one could ask God to do.First of all, there is no logical contradiction. Much like it's unlikely that I can do a triple backflip, there are things that a non-omnipotent god cannot do or are unlikely for it to do. But secondly, even if we take this response as true, then this only further bites into the paradox by saying that because there is no such thing as a rock God cannot lift, God cannot create a rock he CANNOT lift, thus giving an example of something he cannot do. This only further bites into the paradox, which turns the refutation against the attacker. With the argument defended and common refutations against it de-bunked, I must strongly insist that the resolution presented herewithin was affirmed. I ask the voters to vote wisely and vote for the pro debater in this debate today. I now hand the floor over to my opponent, and await his reply.