Really? Never having been on a debate team, I can't say, but I always thought the goal was to offer the more persuasive argument. Destruction seems beside the point.
I don't believe that was the statement, but I suppose it could be construed that way. The way that I'd describe Buddhism is as a philosophy and set of spiritual teachings and practices that do not address the question of whether or not there is a god, much less what its nature might be. Maybe because questions of the existence and nature of God are so central to the Big Three, those of us coming from a Big Three-dominated culture tend to see this as essential to a religion: different religions come up with different answers, but that's the question they all focus on. As Buddhism doesn't, maybe it's a religion and maybe it's not, but it seems to me fundamentally different than what we usually call "religion".
If only destruction was besides the point. It's explained how 'needed' it is in the intro to Marks video.
Buddhism as a whole doesn't concentrate on God as the same way what you call the big three do. I know Buddhists who believe in God and others who don't. The main difference is on what the concentration is on apart from not being exclusive monotheism. Buddha or the one generally known as Buddha believed in God when he went on his course of meditations etc. Within Buddhism there are also Devine beings and 'Gods' but the emphasis is on suffering and the reasons for it and the disciplines to overcome it.
Buddha himself viewed not much differently to how many nowadays view religion. He saw many praying to their Gods and acting like theirs is the true one and the results were basically division and rule and suffering. As he believed God was Good then he saw the truths of why all this madness happens in the name of God needed to be understood. Hence his spiritual path.
O'Sensei used Buddhist divinities in his spiritual sayings too.