Bad Debaters Should Be Removed from DDO

Zaradi loves to scream and yell that he is right on this and that I have lost that. He should do more debating and less asserting victory, its an annoying habit. Unlike Zaradi when I say that he has ignored one of my issues he really has, honesty vs simply asserting correctness.Matches against popular people are always a btch because you have to fight against people who will assume their correctness on the issue and ignore your arguments if they are too complex and then of course there are those people who will vote for them despite what is said. In this case it would be ridiculous to vote for zaradi, if the VP wins the topic that we basically should never ban people then we know what happened.....So this match goes very, very, very simply. Zaradi litterally ignored both of the two only relevant arguments of mine in this match.I will operate under the belief that not responding to, is conceding, an argument.First he conceded my argument that not posting definitionsin round 1 religates the task of defining to the opponent upon acceptance. Actually, he does respond to this, in his last speech, after conceeding it, he points to my statement that it is unfair to make someone argue something they did not intend and then says that I am making him argue something he doesn't want which would be unfair, however if he were to look back at the argument which he ignored and then apparantly half-read, it says, quote: "Failure to define your debate religates the task of defining to the contender, as it is unfair to force someone to debate something they did not intend, although the instigator must suffer this consequence it is justly so, in this way we create a reliable system for creating good, objective debates, and violation of that system represent a negligence through wich allowance of the contender to define the debate preserves order"I have already argued against this point, this just goes to show that the vp is putting a halfassed effort into a debate which he challenged me. So in sum, the argument that my definition must be accepted is conceded meaning we go with my definition of behaviorally bad debaters.The next important argument in this match were my arguments against his case for Not Banning behaviorally bad debaters. Litterally his only points supporting his case here, were that we would be losing site visitors which might remove a small amount of revenue from the site, I then argued against this by pointing out that he is prioritizing money over morality, meaning he is sarificing the experiences of the users of the site for a few dollors of website visitor revenue. His only response was 'no I am not', he essentially laughed off my arguments and then had the gaul to say that I conceded them. Its cocksure at its finest.In anycase this is an open and shut case, zaradi conceded that my definitions must be accepted, and his arguments for allowing behaviorally bad debaters are weak and refuted. I would again like to remind everyone that because we already get rid of behaviorally bad debaters right now, I am simply defending the status quo meaning Zardi has the burden of proof. If you believe that allowing trolls and people who harras other members is a good policy to have, then please vote for zaradi, if however you would prefer to keep things as they currently are on debate.org then for all that is good, cast your vote for pro, my side. As a side note, I extend the Kritik, we should not think of people as "defective" in any respect. Thank you...