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

Everything I say in this round is a suggestion for the reader's consideration. For simplicity, I will present these suggestions as statements.Pro said:"I immediately move to dismiss any and all arguments, assertions, and conclusions that CON will proffer...If CON does continue to argue, I will simply reassert this statement." (my emphasis)Pro has declared that he will move to dismiss my arguments, whatever I say, so we know how Pro will respond. In fact, he has already responded. Therefore the usual concerns about right of reply are irrelevant, and I may (and will) present new arguments in this final round.***Pro said that "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."Ironically, Pro was responding to the questions I posed in this debate. He repeated them, and then tried to answer them, thereby proving that they do have value and I do have means to communicate.His behavior directly contradicts his words.Further, Pro said "If CON does continue to argue, I will simply reassert this statement." This has been contradicted by his behavior in round 2.Therefore, despite Pro's round 1 protestations, we cannot assume that everything he says is true. His statements cannot be taken at face value. He has made both true and false statements in this debate so far.With great reluctance, I must ask readers to compare Pro's inconsistencies with his definitions in round 1. In particular:"a "lie" for the purposes of this debate would be an assertion the truth value of which cannot be determined."Liar: a person who tells liesIf you do conclude that Pro has lied (and is therefore a liar, according to the structure he proposed in round 1), then all his arguments, instructions and questions must be dismissed, including those in round 1.Such a rejection of arguments is more devastating for Pro than for me because he has the Burden of Proof. If his arguments don't hold up, then it makes no difference whether mine do or not. He has failed to uphold his burden.Although, I suppose, if even his round 1 instructions are to be dismissed, then that whole artificial "con is a liar" scaffolding has gone, and both sides to this debate should be judged in the normal way, on merit."Liar" is an archetypal insultMost of debating is triggering knowledge and associations that readers already possess. For example, in a debate about abortion, Pro could use terms such as "freedom", "my body", "religious fanatics". Con could use terms like "protect the innocent", "baby", "murder". It doesn't matter who utters these words. They still have an effect on the reader, and they will trigger associations related to abortion. Actual arguments work the same way. They will be effective if that knowledge and those lines of argument already exist within the minds of readers.Occasionally, a debater will present new information. She has to work harder to make this new information convincing. She will use sources and logic, she will make analogies with common ideas. The reader will not take this new information on trust. He will check it against his own understanding and he will check the logic and the sources given. If it isn't consistent with the knowledge he already possesses, he will reject it.Thus, in the most courteous and objective way possible, readers assume that all debaters are liars, and that their arguments need to be supported. Therefore, characterizing someone as a "liar" does not add or detract in any meaningful way from the function of debating.Of course, I don't like being called a liar. Even artificially, such as in the current debate, it makes me feel uncomfortable. That is because of the hostility and disrespect inherent in the insult. I would feel equally, or more, uncomfortable if I had to accept that I was a "slut" or a "bitch" for the duration of a debate.As Pro has already conceded, calling someone a liar is an archetypal insult.