Trolling is bad for the community.

This is not a debate essay, it is a debate. Further, my opponent didn't have a thesis in HIS first argument, so disregarding the first round as a whole could be done, if necessary. Once again, the first round was only an example. I felt that truly showing the voters what trolling is, rather than simply providing evidence right off the bat, would be more effective in showing how trolling is NOT bad. My opponent argues that I should have scientific support rather than physical support. However, I did this, in the second round. His bashing on my first round is irrelevant, especially when he didn't even point out his position of the topic, nor provide any arguments, in his first round. His claim that he HAD a thesis statement when I did not, is bogus. He says his thesis is that "I believe that Interet trolling (more speciffically on the troll videos on Youtube)(is bad)." If that is considered a thesis, I had one too. His "thesis" only states his position. I stated my position as well. "Troll is not bad..." That statement simply stated my position, just as my opponent did. Furthermore, the support I gave was not unnecessary, but rather essential, for voters to understand the debate. Thus, his entire "thesis" argument crumbles, and he DOESN'T simply win the first round because of his say so.My opponent concedes that my evidence regarding the benefits that can arise from trolling is good. He says, however, that its impact is easily weakened by another study. However, he doesn't bring up what that other study is, nor does he cite any evidence to back this up. The only source he cites is how trolls are "horrible people" which is subjective in nature. Not all trolls are narcisstic or have awful personalities. I trolled during this debate, and I don't consider myself a bad person, and my opponent cannot prove that I am a bad person. Most people acquainted with me would not describe me by using the terms my opponent used to stereotype trolls.He says that there are other ways to have humor, and while true, there is not logical reason to exclude trolling from getting those humorous reactions. I've given an example of a troll, and it is not offensive in any way, but yet subjectively humorous. He further specifies trolling videos, but it's a person's choice to watch those videos, they are not required to. He then outlines 3 basics of troll videos, and here are my arguments against them:1. Not all trolling is the same, and not all include the raging and teasing of children.2. No one is required to watch those videos, and can choose not to. Further, children don't have to participate in scenarios that would lead to such actions and problems.3. Wanting a humorous reaction doesn't necesitate bullying. When telling a joke, the intent is to get a humorous reaction, but a joke is not a form of bullying. Doing something crazy or stupid to make your friends laugh is not bullying. His argument that the correlation between the intent of trolls and bullys facilitates bullying does not prove causation, nor does is it relevant in recognizing the disparity between bullying and simply trolling.In his last paragraph, he makes blatant claims backed up with NO evidence. These are simply uneducated assumptions. As I have exemplified trolling, and shown how it is not offensive, I have also proved that trolling is not bad. Under the context of the debate, I must simply objectively prove that trolling (of any form) is not bad. As I have done so, I negate the resolution. Thank you.