Debate topics on this website (debate.org) should be critiqued

Thanks, RougeFox. ==Resolutional Analysis== *I will point out my interpretation of the resolution in the second falls under the rules set out in the first round.* So does my interpretation. I provided analysis about how a de facto board of approval, like studentathletechristian8's Board of Debate Approval (BDA) fell within the bounds of my opponent's first round definition of critique - that "members of this website should evaluate the quality of resolutions." Both interpretations are left standing, so both are allowed. ==Burden of proof== Dropped again by my opponent. He concedes again that he must prove that 50% (plus one) of resolutions on this website are deficient enough to need intervention from DDO members. He makes no attempt at proving that this many resolutions need critiques. ==His case== The order gets messy here, but my opponent drops a few key refutations. I'll go in the original order. *Topic quality* 1. I drop this. I agree, not everyone uses spellcheck. However, if someone doesn't care enough to spellcheck, that person wouldn't care enough to take the advice in a critique. 2. Resolutional analysis and definitional debates are educational. *Resolutional analysis has a small educational benefit when compared with the topics discussed. For example, a resolution about the situation in Afghanistan is more educational if the topics and arguments are discussed, rather than the resolution* Resolutional analysis HAS to be coupled with good argumentation in order to win. But definitional debates allow the contender to offer arguments that the instigator sometimes tries to define out of the round. The instigators often try to narrow debates down to such an extent that no contender can win. Only resolutional analysis can even allow the contender to make an argument. Take the Afghanistan example. A former public forum topic was – Resolved: Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. Instigators would define the topic as: "the contender must prove that Obama's plan will kill all the Taliban." No contender could do this. Contenders would come back and say "best interest" just means better than the alternatives (withdraw, do nothing). 3. Cases matter more than the topic. I just had a great debate on the topic "birth vs. acquired disability." The topic was really unclear, but the debate itself was not because my opponent offered a really well thought out, lucid case in round 1. The problem in this debate is not due to a deficiency in the topic, but a lack of clarity in my opponent's round 1 case. He never answers my argument that DDO members should NOT help with cases because this is unfair to the contender, who gets no help. They also shouldn't help with topic wording because they might leave the contender too little ground to stand on when "improving" the topic in the instigator's favor. 4. Drop 5. Signaling "it is a good thing to debate weaker opponents sometimes because it helps those people improve" But it doesn't help the stronger debater improve; it should be the contender's choice whether or not to accept, based on the available information. Also, someone who doesn't care enough to word the topic correctly would not be a good opponent for anyone, even a novice debater. The problem is that it shows a lack of EFFORT not a lack of SKILL. If someone is not even willing to spend the time to spellcheck the topic, that person is not going to put much effort into the debate. Badly worded topics are still an important signal. *Education* Resolutional analysis/signaling are extended above 3. Critiques prevent learning *Critiques don't necessarily stifle innovation; since the debate topics would not be regulated.* This doesn't answer my argument one iota. I'll just repeat my argument here: "If someone wants to debate that "President Obama was born in Zimbabwe," who am I to tell that person that he is inevitably going to lose. This individual will learn more from debating his doomed topic than my comment can ever teach him." *Fun* 1. Bad advice *the instigator should know the advice is bad* If the instigator isn't smart enough to word the topic correctly, why should we assume that he or she can differentiate between good advice, bad advice, and joke advice. 2. Stifle innovation *see above* Not really refuted. If someone wants to do something unconventional, DDO members shouldn't try to shame him out of it by making fun of the new idea. 3. Improvement = less fun "Higher quality" topics might be equated with "more serious" topics. Advice could make the topic higher quality, but less fun to debate. Joke topics all fall in this category. *Challenge – more balanced* Advice could also unbalance the topic in favor of the instigator. A great deal of advice on topic improvements would likely be in regards to how to make it harder for the contender to win. ==My case== C1) Conflicting advice *Two conflicting critiques would be evaluated and debated* Proves my C3 C2) Jokes My opponent's response doesn't make sense. Novices won't know when people are joking. For example, brian_eggleston creates topics that seem serious, but are jokes, such as "The U.S. Dept. of State should issue special "Agricultural Intern" entry visas to famine victims," which is really him arguing for bringing slavery back to the U.S. http://www.Debate.org... C3) Seriously delayed debates My opponent concedes under C1 that conflicting advice will be debated endlessly by DDO members in the comments section. The real debate might not start for days or weeks while DDO members debate the proper topic wording. Both instigator and potential contender would learn more from simply starting the debate right away, rather than wading through 20 pages of comments and advice about topic wording. C4) Pointless Instigators often never check the comments section or someone accepts first, so the topic cannot be edited. This is a waste of DDO members' time, which is why they should not offer critiques. C5) Bait and switch Major changes are bad because a contender may accept while thinking the topic is still the old topic. My opponent makes a HUGE concession here: "Critiques wouldn't change a resolution drastically." Then what's the point – DDO members aren't here to correct minor spelling mistakes, which is a huge waste of our time and talents. C6) Unconstructive criticism My opponent clearly hasn't spent enough time on the forums. A lot of DDO is just blatant ridiculing: the bickering between theLwerd and Mirza, nearly all responses to charleslb, everything JimProfit posted, nearly everything brian_eggleston posts is a joke, a great deal of what C_N says is condescending, etc. DDO is filled with trolls, jokesters, and condescenders. C7) Hurt feelings Many people will be ridiculed for being dumb. For example, a recent transgender individual posted a topic about gay marriage, made a number of spelling errors, and was blatantly ridiculed for days on the comments section. This made him/her quit DDO. C8) Destroys DDO user experience *Debate should be open to all, even those who cannot write effective topic sentences.* Exactly my point. Enacting a de facto system or review board that is needed to critique/review topics will mean that anyone whose topics do not pass muster cannot debate. Anyone who is deemed by the DDO community as too stupid, or too bad at spelling, or too silly, or too contentious, or too much of a troll will be turned away by this de facto system of shaming/critiquing bad topics and debaters. Because my opponent fails his BOP to prove that at least 50% of topics need to be critiqued and because I have demonstrated downsides to critiques, specifically their exclusionary nature and their tendency to greatly delay the start time of debates, I urge a Con vote.