People take debate.org way to seriously

To further drive home my point, see the argument above, and probably bellow. This site is just for fun, there is no reason to be "formal" because I'm just chillin' on the couch with a laptop in shorts and a t-shirt, just watch my opponent will say "wrong type of formal." Online debating on debate.org is not the same thing as baseball (which is boring if you ask me, and people do take it to seriously.) as one of the comments from rangersfootballclub says "... I have particpated in 25 debates only one or two because of strong belives , the others for fun , i am constantly hated for not refering to sources or using facts and spelling over and over again , i do it for the fun of it , my arguemnts are always legitmate ( except the odd rant everybody has ! ) and make sense , however people refuse to read it because i donot do it "the correct way " by refering to this and that , get lost i hate you knit pickers lol!" If you want to debate formally, go join a formal debate club. Here Are more quotes proving my point. brewmaster-"Question: Did you seriously post this topic as a legitimate debate, or were you just trying to have fun? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this was just for amusement (look at some of the crap I argue), but if this was just to start a flame war then it is irresponsible and childish." here is a debate where people take this to seriously between zippo and Maikuru "People should be banned for forfeiting debates on debate.org." brian_eggleston-"I can't believe that debate! The response was so outrageous that I suspect Con must be a troll. Either way, it's a great shame, as the theory is imaginative and well-worth exploring further - a proper debate on the idea might even prove to be the basis for a future academic paper, if not for Pro, for someone else (they could even pinch Pro's excellent diagram from R1!) It's a real pity Con didn't engage in the discussion properly and it is most regrettable that he felt the need to be so discourteous. If Con is a typical representative of the Christian faith, I am happy to remain an "unenlightened" atheist!" TFranklin62-"that is really stupid and inappropreate for a site like this" Zeratul-"Guys this is a stupid debate and a complete waste of time, unless you are really trying to learn something from it, which i highly doubt. "Why?" is all I have to say." this is the argument of NJDebater- "Since this is the only open debate, i might as well debate it. I must concede to the resolution, since it has nothing to do with me, and I know nothing of the opposite debater's relationship with this Tiffany Meade. Since all information provided by the opponent must be used against him, i can not trust the information he gives, utterly destroying the whole resolution. That is why i am forced to concede. Therefore, the resolution is faulty. And thus, you must vote for con. However, that is only my last resort. Please apply this in the final round. I will debate the best i can. So, my opponent annoys her. All the more reason to punch him. Telling at teacher won't stop my opponent from annoying her, as by analyzing the typical human psyche. Now, please note the contradiction in my opponent's case. "I can't hit her because any guy who hits a girl is a douche unless she attacks the guy." Well, she did attack him, so he is justified in hitting her back. Thus, turn the impacts of this argument my opponent provides against him. He lists the solution to his problem in his own case. Therefore, you must vote con. Thank you." All these people are taking this way to seriously.