Debate.org should not have only conduct-votes

The opening line strike over thank is cute. Pro is accusing me of raging, but doesn't provide any examples of this. Dis-regard. Also framework isn't something neccesary of refuting. With that said, pro also didn't "Refute" mine, though there is nothing to refute. Framework is to set up a premise behind how the debate will be run, in which all firewings framework does is say he is making arguments about freedom and liberty. This conversation is pointless. Liberty of Choice However, I clearly said that laziness does not matter, if the vote is sufficient. A ff vote is suffcient. Nothing wrong about it. No reason to remove it. Some people might not like, it but if it is sufficient, it is totally fine.My opponent is not explaining how a forfeit vote is sufficient. He is just saying that it is, and expecting you to just take his word for it. This is not an argument. We are arguing a "should" that means Con is required to provide reasoning for why a FF vote is sufficient, which he is not doing. My opponent says that good debates were effected by ff only votes.They are and Con has yet to refute the sources I posted demonstrating how good debates were ruined by FF only votes. Pro fails to rebut that ff votes are sufficient, so there is nothing wrong for them. Con is literally lying to you. I set up an elaborate round 1 argument explaining exactly how good debates end up getting butchered by multiple bad votes as opposed to 1 or 2 good ones. Pro fails to actually rebut my Consitiution case, just saying that is irrevelant, when I just merely showed an example.To be clear, Con never actually provides a "case" for the constistution. He only posted a qoute that means nothing if he fails to explain how it is relevant to the debate. Unless it harms others which is basically from the voters view of it not sufficient.This is pretty un-intelligible (like a lot of Con's 'arguments'), but he is just repeating that FF votes are sufficient because they are without acknowledging any of the arguments I laid out in R1. Merely, the FF debates are all bad. If they have bad argumentation, do we have to vote arguments? No. But the thing is you don't actually know if they have bad arguments if you fail to read a debate prior to voting. THATS THE WHOLE THING. You are assuming because of a forfeit, the rest of the arguments made are null and void. Unless you are mentioning purely forfeited debates, in which case this is not even relevant to the debate. The resolution is phrased so that a FF votes should not be cast on debates with over 3 rounds of argumentation. ff votes might harm the voters, or debaters, but they have nothing to do with it. It is sufficient.Con is now using an ad nauseum fallacy, where he is just repeating the same thing over and over again without explaining what he means. He also literally just said FF votes might harm the debaters. He essentially is destroying his own case. Then I talk about slaverly. Pro fails to refute this, just saying it is silly that voting goes until slavery.I have no clue what you are talking about. You said that restricting bad votes equates to advocating slavery. You are absolutely lying to the audience and manipulating them at this point. Less people will vote My point was that, no much bother to vote for argument points, when they can just easily write, FF. This will probably make people not vote, making no one win in forfeit debates. Exactly, Con is not proving how FF votes are beneficial to the site, he is only saying that they are sufficient. We need to consider how these votes are sufficient, not just accept them as being sufficient and move on from the discussion. Con is refusing to debate me in a 5 round debate. This makes no sense. I half feel like I am being trolled, and I half worry for Jason's sanity. My opponent fails to rebut my framework also.Con already said this and fails to show how his framework was making an impactful argument. Con clearly doesn't know what framework is, or how to even debate for that matter. I suggest Con does research on how to debate before debating people out of ignorance. Especially if he is ignorant of concepts as simple as framework. My case....................................................................................................................................................................... Yes ladies and gentlemen, we are more than halfway through the debate and STILL con has refused to argue a single point of mine. This debate is a sh1t show, and I was trolled by thinking the user firewings would give me a serious debate. Firewings is wasting my time and yours until he decides to actually debate me. I appologize to any readers that have to do endure this, I surely wouldn't have ever accepted this debate had I bothered to look at any of firewings previous debates to see just how bad he actually is.