Debate.org should promote debtors to insult each other.

My opponent did wisely drop a few points, but who needs them? They're obviously not really worthy of being in this debate if the fountain of all knowledge (aka my opponent) didn't want to talk about them in this round. Did I mention how awesome my opponent is? Behold! He has even begun his latest round by bringing up the insightful reasoning behind the second-to-none wording of the motion. Topics like this should be considered poetry, although of course no other topics are as good as those set by my opponent. Being of very little brain myself, I fail to understand the relevance of the point to the debate, so perhaps if my generous opponent would kindly explain, elaborate and pontificate on this it would help lesser folk such as me understand his divine wisdom. But wait, there's more. My masterful opponent didn't just stop there - in fact, we've barely begun the scratch the surface of his groundbreaking analysis, for he claims that insults are humorous. Wow, I'd never thought about it like that before. What a great advantage it would be to debates if only they were funnier. And what a great way to be funny - teasing, bullying, hurting the feelings of others - sounds like a great way to have fun. But I have an even better idea. You can be funny - and be nice at the same time! That way, you get all the benefits of humor, without it being at the expense of somebody else. Remember how my opponent already admitted to us that his model has no benefit? Even if debates today are not humorous enough, there are plenty of ways to be funny without insults, so it's a very good thing my hellacious opponent didn't claim causation here. He would have been wrong if he did, but he admirably never meant for this to prove the resolution true, only provide some general context. He goes on to extend the contextual analysis by using an example from his previous debate - kindly sharing a small portion of his vast experience. And who could argue with that? Next my unselfish opponent, who's so clearly winning already that he might as well give me every advantage, concedes that not all insults ought even be promoted under his model. So at this point he's arguing for advocating an improvement in both quality AND quantity of insults, going above and beyond what he is required to prove. I can't wait for him to actually do that proving. Turning to my paradox. Here it is again - if insulting causes you to lose, then my opponent should lose. But since the insulter is not my opponent, I should not win. My opponent resolves this by arguing that I can win despite being wrong. So taking the original paradox and this statement to their logical conclusion then . .. my opponent can't win despite being right. This seems a bit absurd to me, despite which it seems counter-intuitive to the purpose of a debate, which I've always understood to be convincing your audience that you are right. My guess is that my distinguished opponent has not explained this to the depth required for my menial comprehension. Or perhaps he is claiming that it is impossible for him to win, which would be alright since my opponent can self-evidently do the impossible. Finally, my fine opponent uses a neologism - "sat" (as in "using logical fallacies . .. is very sat"). I'll be writing to all the major dictionaries shortly to teach their editors of this new discovery. Don't worry, I'll include a voucher for the counselling sessions they will need to go to after their exposure to this magnanimous gift. I have no idea what it means, though, so I'll have a team of expert linguists, etymologists and other researchers get on that shortly. This neologism is used to explain how in real life, most people argue against themselves and use logical fallacies. This is true - most people (unlike, presumably, my opponent) having nothing better to do than argue against themselves. In fact, I'll bet most of the people on DDO have two accounts just so they can have debates against themselves all the time. But as insults are apparently never logical fallacies, and it is thus impossible to commit a logical fallacy while insulting, it is worth learning insulting so you can be right. How true! We should be more correct if we tell ourselves we are never right! I guess this means all those Islamists who insult you must be right as well. The politicians must all be right . .. somehow. The world would be all alright if we were all right, right? You wouldn't need to worry about who to vote for in an election, for example, because all the politicians would be truthful and besides that you wouldn't have elections because you'd live in a strict theocracy. But hang on - would it not also be possible to not commit a logical fallacy and not insult someone? This terrific argument is against the fallacy, not the insult. To prove my point, let me tentatively assert that I have committed no logical fallacies in my non-insults in this debate. It is up to my able opponent now to show that every insult I have made is true and every non-insult is false. It may be a Herculean task that even Chuck Norris would have to think for a moment about, but I'm sure for my out-of-this-world opponent this is no mean feat. So we see my great opponent has still not met their burden of proof, nor it seems has he attempted to. Brace yourselves, voters. I think that when it comes to my opponent's arguments, we haven't seen anything yet! The best must be yet to come.