Debate.org should promote debtors to insult each other.

My divine opponent has revealed unto us a great revelation - he is not merely "God". I mean, seriously, who does this God person think he is? How could anyone even compare God to the incredible miracles performed by my opponent in this debate, such as bending the rules of logic to his will and making Spanish look exactly like English (even speaking Spanish could be rightly considered a superpower, as proven on the Powerpuff Girls). The arguments we have witnessed already, the drama - this debate is clearly a lot better than any religious text out there today, and it's all thanks to my opponent. Let us now return to the debate. My opponent begins by asking what points he wisely dropped. Not that they were important to the debate, or worth talking about again, of course, nor that my opponent needs to ask me, for his knowledge is boundless. The points dropped in round three were the lack of a benefit to my opponent's model, and the increased quantity of votes argument of Arthur Schopenhauer the all-knowing. Not that he knows as much as my opponent though. That's in addition to the points he dropped in this round. As part of this, by some means that I cannot quite fathom, my wonderful opponent pointed out that I have the last word in this debate, which is apparently a huge advantage. Concessions are obviously not enough advantages for me to overcome my opponent's incredible arguments, so my gracious opponent saw fit to give me a structural advantage too. My opponent then asserts that jerks are better debaters than nice people. This argument is so good, I humbly concede it. Jerks are better than nice people at debating. Remember, though, that it is possible for a non-insulting person to be a jerk - therefore a jerk is not necessarily somebody who insults people. So while being a jerk may improve your argument, being insulting still provides no benefit. The arguments continue with my opponent saying he's no longer arguing that we should insult each other more. In other words, my magnificent opponent feels he has already won this debate because the motion is that Debate.Org should promote insults. Since insults are banned in the status quo, that means my opponent first needed to show some reason why they should be unbanned. His argument for why we should have better quality insults is, as we have come to expect, absolutely perfect and flawless in every respect. I completely agree that where there are insults, they should be of the highest quality. However, recall that my position in this debate is that there should be no insults at all. In fact, niceness and pleasantries, including lumping exorbitant amounts of praise on your opponent, should be rewarded in debates. Again my highly experienced opponent graces us with some examples, which puts his point beyond any doubt. I'm going to continue with the present debate that's actually what the topic is about, and concede the other one. But winning this debate, which apparently he has already done, and winning the argument that higher quality insults are superior to lower quality insults, is not enough for my opponent - he is now ALSO arguing about whether "Islamofobia" is a genuine term. So my opponent has not only won this debate, but two others as well. It's like killing three birds with one stone. As part of this he states that insulters start thinking they are right, and that they win debates with this extreme mental power, which is tragic. Apparently the same can be done with fallacies. I completely agree - insults are tragic. Since tragedy is something we should avoid, my opponent has in fact made an argument for me, another noble gift of charity from my high-minded opponent. Did I mention my exceptional opponent has also just made a fourth debate within this one on the use of semantics in debating and won that too? And a fifth debate about whether Farage is a good debater? Finally my opponent says debating without insults is not the same as debating with insults. I agree. Debating is much better with no insults. Why promote insults when it makes debates worse? We're not talking about whether we should USE insults, only whether we should PROMOTE their use. As part of this my opponent explains that kids in kindergartens have secret identities and never use insults. I knew it! "Spy Kids" is real folks! Then he says he asks if we act like the kids on Spy Kids. I can't speak for everyone else, but I do have a collection of cool gadgets and go on quests and stuff. Again the purpose of this point is a little beyond me, so I hope my opponent can explain further. The advantage my opponent sees of debating with insults here, it seems, is that it prepares us for real life debates with insults. Again, this is true, and it would prove the resolution true if we make the presumption that everyone on here is a real-life debater. Thankfully my opponent didn't make that presumption, or else he'd have been wrong again. Not every real-life debate allows insults, and not every user on this site is a real-life debater. Some are internet loners with serious mental health issues, for whom even the slightest insult could push them over the edge to suicide. Nobody wants to see these people die, right? They may be asking for trouble, as my opponent rightly points out, but that doesn't mean you have to give it to them. With that, I yield back to my grand opponent, who is about to post the greatest round ever.