This is a troll debate

Do not be fooled by the instigator's improper definition of "troll" and his small word count; he is actually a very clever individual. By carefully redefining trolls as people who argue over trivial issues, he sets what he believes to be "trollbait"; that is, he seeks to use my own argument, regardless of its nature, as proof that I am willing to debate a "trivial" issue (we will get to the rationale behind the quotation marks in a moment). Additionally, in the case that I were to argue for the real definition of a troll (that is, someone who seeks to upset others), the instigator is then enabled to state that I have been enraged at his superficially unexceptional post and / or that he has been similarly enraged by my post, making apparent that we actively seek to argue with others over things that he apparently considers to be useless. In this understanding, we can derive three implicit arguments from the instigator: A1. That what we are arguing at the moment is "trivial" A2. That anger is bound to be evoked from the instigator and / or myself during the debate A3. A2 proves A1 These ideas are not plausible upon careful examination. A1. "Trivial" means "of little value or importance" (this definition is found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary). Values, naturally, emanate from people as individuals. Since I am an individual, I can determine the value of this debate and have it be relatively correct in my case. As one may guess, I have already determined it to not be trivial. The instigator might expect to argue in light of this fact (perhaps not in these exact words), "but isn't the fact that we're participating in the "funny" section of debate.org proving that we're not doing anything meaningful?" Were he to do so, it would be ironically laughable; for by the acts of carefully creating and participating in a debate that he derides, he has implicitly judged the debate and any participation in it to be of a value so considerable that he would willingly waste his time. (Of his own free will, he has not instead used his life to do anything else that you can think of. This is also the case of anyone who is reading this debate, you included.) He and I , essentially, are here debating for a valuable reason: we as human beings want to have fun. Fun provides mental stimulation, and the intellectual challenge and possibility that you can dominate others are very real routes to personal entertainment. In proof of that, I can submit this entire debate and the continued existence of the entire debate.org website. A2. I have sufficiently demonstrated and expressed positive interests in this debate in my prior paragraphs, so there are only two routes by which this argument can become verifiable: the instigator can suggest that my next post will demonstrated rage beyond a reasonable doubt, or he can hereby attempt to demonstrate his own rage beyond a reasonable doubt. Both routes of argument , from a proof standpoint, are complicated by the facts that we are both self-interested individuals who want to win debates and that it is not easy to conclusively demonstrate what is felt via a text-based medium like debate.org. Although it is theoretically possible for the instigator to attempt either of these and find success, a convincingly conclusive proof is highly improbable given these facts and my demonstration of him finding the debate valuable. (Also, it would be irrational for him to take offense at me complimenting him.) A3. A2 is yet to be proved. Furthermore, in order for this to be proven, there must be a counterintuitive demonstration that emotional involvements in a debate prove its triviality (the contrary is true, as previously demonstrated). In conclusion, while the instigator is a smart fellow, his argument is the equivalent of building a trap on thin Antarctic ice and falling into the waters behind him.