Bad Debaters Should Be Removed from DDO

Thanks to TinyBudha for accepting. Let's start with definitions: Bad - of poor quality; inferior or defective.[1][2][3][4][5] Prefer this definition because a) it best reflects the accuracy of the definition. The vast majority of dictionary texts give this as the definition, this is the most accurate and conversationally correct definition of the term, thus the one that should be used for this debate. b) it best fits the spirit of the debate. The entire resolution is set up to discuss lower caliber debaters rather than debaters who, say, are rude and offensive. If I were wanting to debate about whether trolls or offensive members should be removed from the site, there are far better words to use than "bad", meaning that this is the more fitting definition to use.And, let me posit a definition and ignore his calls for a full forfeiture because:a) There's absolutely nothing in the Round One setup that has anything to do with this, so it's him being sore about it.b) Definitions are half the scope of a debate round in the first place, meaning that denying the potential to contest definitions closes off an entire half of the resolution to be discussed. c) Discussing definitions in round better adheres to real-life debate. Events such as Lincoln-Douglas, Public-Forum, Cross-Examination/Policy, Parlimentary, etc. all offer definitions in round to be contested and discussed by both sides, thus being the most accurate and publicly known form of debating. d) My opponent knew damn well what my intentions were coming into this debate. I blatantly called him out in the forums for the argument he's running/going to run[6], so he should've expected this to happen. Don't blame me for him being oblivious. e) There's no warrant for why me not defining terms in the first round means that he gets the power to set the "official terms" for what words mean. His response will be "that's just how debating is", which only begs the warrant of why we ought not be able to contest and debate definitions, especially in very word-focused resolutions such as this one where the entire scope of the resolution is focused around what this one word means. f) Half of my arguments are going to be centered around the possibility that you buy his definition in the first place, so there's no reason to actually just forfeit the debate now: I can win under either definition.Like I just said, my arguments will be two-sided; one half will be if you accept my definition, the other will be if you accept my opponent's definition. I'll start with my definition.Why we ought not get rid of poor quality debaters:a) It precludes the opportunity for advancement and improvement. The only way that bad debaters become good debaters is through practice. Removing them from the site precludes opportunities to learn and improve upon their mistakes, which robs the world of better debaters in the future. This means, if we affirm, we rob the world of a potential infinite number of intellectually substantial and engaging debates by removing them from being able to debate here rather than allowing them to learn from their mistakes and improve. b) It flies in the face of the entire purpose of debating in learning more. If the reason we debate is to learn more things about the world around us and to discuss those things against other people, then it would be entirely contradictory to the point of debate. c) It lowers the number of active members on the site, meaning that there's less traffic going through the site. This has two negative implications. First, with less traffic the owners of the website (Juggle) will be making less revenue, meaning they'll be less inclined to make beneficial changes to the site that improves and encourages academic debate. Since the entire point of the debate is to have the end goal of more good debate, this is very bad. Second, less people on the site means that there's just quantitatively less people to discuss ideas and issues with, leading to an increased possibility of growing bored with the site and leaving for other sites/other past times, which is bad. Why we ought not get rid of behaviorally bad debaters:a) Behaviorally bad members can still be academically great debaters. If the point of a debating website is to encourage intellectual discourse, we should be focusing our attentions on reforming bad members into valuable members of the community rather than exiling them from the get-go.b) Getting rid of members, regardless of how toxic they are, still lowers site traffic, which leads to the same harms as my c) point above. With that, I pass the ball over to my opponent. Sources:[1] - https://www.google.com...[2] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] - http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[5] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...[6] - http://www.debate.org...;