A battle we can certainly have with each other, where we merely have to agree on whether

1. we want to allow personal attacks and then counter them skilfully, or whether
2. we want to keep such out of it and stick strictly to arguments.

For the first variant (which has its charme and is the bigger challenge, I think), it requires a large portion of honesty, in which you, as the one who receives a skilful counterattack, reveal that your opponent's reaction has surprised, irritated or heartily amused you. Reactions that do not surprise the opponent, but on the contrary were to be expected, would then be considered "not skilful". In anticipation of personal attacks as direct and indirect insults, I would think that a different fighting spirit would accompany the battle.

In and of itself, it would almost be something like a paradoxical rule.

Points would be deducted for predictability, points would be gained for humorous land-grabbing, and points would also be gained for argumentation that addressed the matter at hand and included questions about it.

:)