Debate.org ought to use Lincoln Douglas formatted debate as required

**Check the summary at the end for a re-cap of what's going on in this debate.** Well let's start by saying Public Debate isn't part of the National Forensics League, so how am I supposed to even use this? 1) The reasons I provide are listed throughout the last argument post. 2) I'm showing that all are equal; that any of them can be preferred. But as I elaborate in my third argument, I show that LD is all we're looking at in this round, so we can't prove other debates as better. 3) Exactly, we're not trying to prove OTHER debates as superior, just LD. It's the only thing we need to worry about in this round. At this point, my opponent has dropped his first observation about trying to prove LD superior to all debates, because he says that LD is the one we're debating. Now, on to the cross-ex argument. 1) Live chat would be very successful considering that opponents still have to be on within a certain time frame (i.e. 48 hours, etc_. This instantaneously shortens the window of time and makes a run-in much more likely. My opponent's argument of "complicating voting" is completely unwarranted, not to mention not even elaborated. A forum, again, would be even more logical because opponents still have to be on within a short time frame in order to post arguments. 2) This argument is unwarrented or even explained, so drop this argument. 3) We're not trying to prove Public Debate, and like you said yourself, "we're only looking at LD debate." Now, on to the next arguments presented, about limiting the scope of debate. 1) My opponent says that we're limited to only NFL topics per year, which isn't true at all. We can go back in time to past LD topics, look at the future topics, etc. So we're not limited to 6 topics a year, but actually have quite a few to choose from. My opponent completely ignores the point that LD topics are useful and carry weight, so this is something you're going to vote off of. Even more over, you can create any topic you desire and simply use LD debate formatting to debate it! For example, during the off-season at our school, we're using a made-up topic to keep debaters working, so you're not limited on topics at all. 2) They sure can use it to develop argumentation; however, without a structure, it's difficult, if not impossible, because everything is so un-orderly. Rather than creating another site, like my opponent suggests, it'd be much easier to just modify this site because we can just tack-on to the framwork that's already present. ----------- 1) LD is Structured Alright, so is my opponent states that there are already quite a few things that we can do "LD Style" on Debate.org. So is my opponent saying that we already have LD in place? In which case, you'd have to vote affirmative by default. But even so, this doesn't argue against my case whatsoever, so my first argument already extends through the round and will become a voting issue. 2) LD is Commonly Used My opponent is completely correct in his claim that many people argue many things on Debate.org. However, from my personal experience, the vast majority of debaters here are LD. For example, myself. Restricting to LD debaters, like I stated previously, will attract MORE debaters, and this point is completely un-refuted by the opposition. So again, this point is extended and will become another voting issue to vote PRO. ----------- So what do we see in this round so far? We see a couple things: 1) The argument about functionality. On both sides, you see arguing whether or not using LD debate would be functional on Debate.org. There's the question of cross-ex, speech ordering, etc. But, you see that the CON side has agreed that Debate.org already carries many of the tasks of LD debate! Quoting my opponent, "Evidence, contention numbering, and impact calculus can easily be achieved on debate.org." So that solves that argument right away. The question of cross-ex is simple: live chats, forum posting, are all very reasonable and very functional. The CON argues that there would never be a simultaneous gathering of the debaters in order for this to work efficiently, however, the PRO shows that because the window of time is shortened because of argument posting, this is much more likely. 2) Appeal to the masses This topic arose because of the many number of Lincoln Douglas debaters that wanted their debate to be used on Debate.org, without having to worry about people corrupting that. And because of that appeal, the PRO argues that Debate.org would attract more debaters because of that special feature. The CON doesn't argue much in return, simply that the topics would be limited and thus, the debates. The PRO comes back and states that there are both past, present, and future topics that can be used, so we're not really limited. Moreso, the PRO argues that we can create topics and use LD formatting to debate them, so this isn't a limitation at all. ------- Who to vote? It's clear, right off the bat, to vote PRO because of the fact that not only is the CON arguing that LD is perfectly capable on Debate.org, but because of the fact that it appeals to the masses. So we've already met the criteria in this round, so you can only vote PRO in this debate. Thank you.