Debates over debates

Thanks pro for accepting this challenge Pro has made some good valid points THOUGH id like to elaborate Firstly my opinion on this subject states that all debates should be openly diverted and that each oponent should be able to understand each others views , yet can disagree and use facts to state that case. Pro explained that for one to make a good debate and win they should more articulate, clever, original and have a convincing manner. Yes you can win a debate by using this but at the same time i dont think people always have to fuse personal qualities to convince someone else. In addition to this the point im going to get across is that each oponent should be able to write whatever they want and it shouldnt be all based on getting things technically right. I quote as pro writes Hmm, again we disagree. It's only natural that certain deductions/judgments be made when reading something that someone has written. By nature, one is evaluating the words, the concepts, the grammar, etc. while reading and using context clues to determine the writer's beliefs, education, experience, knowledge, and other factors relevant to the debate I dont think this is relevant as such to a debate, I Think a debate should be purely on the subject and nothing beyond that, I dont think the oponent should make a pure perception of one based on a debate this also follows my statement on judging someone by this, i also dont think the oponent should acknowledge someones background by a debate. Following this i dont think debates should always have to be comprehensible , i think each one should be able to clearly format their arguement based on the arguements position , and be clear on what the subject entails. Each person should be able to establish their opinions mixed in with facts they believe to be true whether its based on scientifical facts or theorys, yet the oponent should be able to understand clearly and not withheld what they believe. Baiscally moreover , my basic arguement is this someone should be able to debate a subject online and let it be open to pros,cons anyone who wants to disagree but they shouldnt be able to ridicule or judge anyone by a statement for the pure facts its immaturity and it shows a lack of understandment of the other ones position regarding the debate After all these arguemnts are based online we dont know the person fully to judge someone by spelling or writing techniques. Pro stated:Actually, anybody can say anything (and even have it be valid) if one can prove it or back it up with facts and out-argue a nay-sayer. Moreover, this argument is hypocritical. This resolution is based on a belief and yet Con is attempting to argue her belief over mine. Hmm, interesting. That is true their is no code on conduct regarding arguements but i think if someone is going to challenge the person to a debate it should be purely on the subject what they believe factual errors and so on.Nobody should be able to tell somebody they are wrong (based on opinions ) , it wouldnt be a debate otherwise using that term is quite on the sly ignorant in my opinion, Debates are people challenging each others persistance and manner debaters should be able to relate to somebody else but correct where they think they have gone wrong. As for the hypocritical part i dont see how im bieng hypocritical? could you elaborate that , i havent said you were wrong in anything you stated i respect what you said but this is what i think and believe should be blaringly obvious,