People on debate.org need to get their resolutions/arguments straight.

You say that people need to not use bad grammar in a topic because it's confusing. If you're confused, don't take the debate. We're not all college students here, and I'm sure some of us don't even know English as our first language. If it's to much trouble to waste a little more time reading sentences to understand them, don't take a debate with someone who uses bad grammar. Consider this: I start a debate with a topic in Klingon. You don't understand what it means (hopefully). You can either A> take it or B> leave it. If you chose A, you're either too much of a geek for me to talk to, or you're a foolish knave (knave's just the noun I like to attach to foolish). To be clearer - you have to be a fool to take a debate when you can't understand what you're supposed to be debating. You said that my argument is based largely on telling would-be contenders not to make mistakes. You fail to see the intense irony here. Either that, or you felt like making a rather ironicly self-defeating statement just for the heck of it. I'll let you reflect on that now. (I'll give you a hint... you're telling the Instigators the same thing... and you're also blaming them when the contenders make a mistake). >>But the fact is, When the words 'Uncostitiutional' and 'taxes' are mentioned in the same sentence, most people think of one thing (the wrong thing).<< So you're saying that Instigators need to make sure to use proper grammar, no double negatives (just because you don't like them?), and no other confusing language... but would-be contenders just need to GLANCE at the topic before taking the debate. I hadn't previously considered the art of skimming a single sentence, but that seems to be what you're advocating as responsible action. And if your skimming leads you to a wrong conclusion, it's definitely the other guy's fault, right? Not to mention, and here's where it gets real funny, you have a whole paragraph+ on the guy's stance. There should be NO confusion about what the stance is, he has his opening statements laying there in plain sight. >>You can't expect every person to read over the resolution 15 times, because if you accepted the challenge, you obviously THOUGHT you knew what the resolution said. (sorry that was kinda run-on.)<< You CAN expect people to at least read the entire topic, not just glance at two words, and you CAN expect people to read the opening statements. You CAN'T, however, expect the blame to be placed elsewhere if you failed to actually read the topic or the opening statements. Also, in regards to the PS3 topic, what I meant was the following: "PS3 is a bad system to own" - Pro and "PS3 is not a good system to own" - Pro Are not the same thing. While good and bad are in fact opposites, there is a middle ground. In the first case, con would only have to show that the PS3 is mediocre, since that's better than bad. however, mediocre would be on Pro's side in the second case, since mediocre is not good. An example of double negatives actually meaning something, that's all. Now, responding to your offense... >>creating topics with grammatical errors, such as double-negatives are just stupid. They are confusing- as per not unconstitutional, many debaters lose debates because they didn't know what they are getting into, and people simply viewing the debate have to think about the topic for a while.<< First, double negatives are _not_ grammatically _in_correct (I hope that statement didn't confuse you). They might be something to avoid in essays or something, but this is a casual community. If you can't understand what they mean, don't take a debate when they use one in the title. Second, 'not unconstitutional' is not confusing. Whoever took that debate clearly did not see the word 'not'... it's not like he saw it and thought it didn't mean anything. He wasn't confused by the words, he just didn't read the title as well as he perhaps should have. And it cost him the debate, I'm sure. But to blame this on the instigator... as if he was the one not doing his duty? That, if anything, is confusing. >>annoying- as I'm sure most of you agree, I get annoyed because I have to think about it. I find myself asking, Why don't you just make it clear WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.<< It may annoy you, but I'm sure a great deal of things would. Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam See, that probably did it. However, neither I nor other members have some duty to avoid your annoyance. In fact, we have no way of knowing what's going to annoy you. "Not unconstitutional" doesn't annoy me in the slightest, but it seems to get you worked up, for whatever reason. We're not mind-readers, we shouldn't have to know what's going to annoy you, neither should we have to avoid it if we did know. >>Grammar- Debate is combat, fought with words, not fists. Debate is one of the only places where we can use our rhetoric skills while also serving a greater cause. When we start to break away to poor grammar, the essence of debate is taken away, right from our hands.<< bad sentence still pack strong punch. big hurt on enemy still mean big win. words no, but yes to the ideas! they make side. >>2. Also I'd like to bring up a new argument. In one debate, a debate said the resoulution "Freedom of Speech". While that is not even a real topic, you would think the con is against freedom of speech. But no, the argument was that freedom of speech should not allowed for groups like the KKK, but for the general public. Topics like this also link to my 3 impacts, because they don't even say what the pro or con should actually beileve in. Take a challenge I recieved. "To help or not to help: Nietzsche and stuff." I had to send back a debate with a clear resolution. If it were an open challenge that I did not know about, I would have to read the WHOLE THING before I decided if I wanted to debate this. If it were 'We can help others by not helping at all', It would provide clear ground for what the pro is saying and what I should say.<< While I'll admit that I'm even annoyed at things like that, I just don't take the challenge. If it's something I have very strong feelings on, I might even bother to read the opening statement enough to see what his stance was, just out of curiosity, but I probably still wouldn't take if. If you don't like the 'topic of debate,' don't debate it. It's not someone else's fault if you do and don't know what you're getting yourself into. Confusing Resolutions should be ignored by would-be contenders on debate.org. I mean really, c'mon.