I will lose this debate.

Thanks for your response, butthead. Pffffff.It appears my opponent is very keen on not allowing me to lose this debate. I'd like to take a closer look at his rebuttal.His first point can be broken down into two parts: 1.) The debate means nothing and has no value, and 2.) The debate doesn't actually exist. I value the debate enough to argue for it, and clearly, my opponent cares enough to respond. Anyone reading this debate cares enough to vote, and from the perspective of utility, that's good enough for all of us. 1.) changes nothing; my opponent is still srsly winning. I don't give two shlts [1] if this debate has no value; I'm still getting my butt handed to me. In short: I GIVE A CRAP, AND THAT'S WHAT MATTERS. ME ME ME ME ME.2.) is an epistemological response, suggesting that since the overwhelming majority of people do not know of its existence, this debate does not exist. I do not agree with this definition of existence; we could argue that anything does not exist if we do not perceive it, which goes against common sense. Were we to take 2.) seriously, in order for the scientific community to prove anything, they would first need to convince over half the world population that their experiments took place before they can publish anything in a scientific journal. Schools would not be able to teach children anything without proving everything through first-hand senses. Complex thought would go out the window, and we would be left with a technologically stunted community of people who don't trust anything beyond what they can perceive themselves. I could also take this same form of argument and say the following:I. My victory or a tie with Emmo in this debate would be unknown to almost 7 billion people on this planet.II. Therefore, neither my victory nor tie exist or can exist.III Therefore, I am left with the only option: I lose this debate.I am losing this debate, as the keen voter can see clearly, but it is not because of the argument I just presented. Part II of my fallacious argument is the culprit: people not seeing something does not mean it does not exist. We all know that, metaphysically, something does exist even if we do not sense it ourselves. Hence, 2.) is incorrect, and Emmo is still kicking my butt. And it hurts. My butt is turning red.The second part of his rebuttal suggests that I am dying, and that this reality (and hence this debate) is part of a dream I am having in the remaining seven or so minutes my brain has left to function. However, he then jumps from a possibility to a reality, claiming that he is in fact me, an extension of me. This is seriously creeping me the fack out [2], but my opponent has failed to logically prove that this debate is all in my head. This shows my opponent's generosity in that he wishes to keep me from losing, but still, it does not change the fact that he is really, truly kicking my arse [3]. How embarrassing for me.His conclusion makes no sense whatsoever, which I respect very much as another attempt to keep me from losing, but screw being polite. Emmo solicits sex from farm animals [4].I'd like to prove my ineptitude in this debate by ending my response with an incomplete[1] I tried to swear, but this website won't let me. Please mentally replace the "l" with an "i."[2] Again! It won't let me lose the way I want!! Please mentally replace the "a" with a "u."[3] I wanted to say the not-as-nice version of this word. Stupid filter.[4] lol, u looked