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

1) Public Debate My opponent states that he's already defined what Public Debate is. There's two problems with this claim. First, he never defined it himself; which is key to his own understanding as well as mine. But more importantly, the only attempt he actually makes at defining it is a link to Wikipedia, which we can question the legitimacy of right off the bat. Either way, it's unfair for my opponent to come back in his last speech and define it for the debate, because I can't respond to it. Either way, we have to look at Lincoln Douglas debate regardless of what's superior in the round. I've already presented reasons why we must prefer LD already: such as it's not a team event (1 on 1) and it's more formatted than any other debate. 2) Cross Ex Again, there's a multitude of ways to carry this out. In terms of this argument, the debate hasn't gone too far. I've already presented the fact that within a 48 hour period (even shorter for some debates) it is statistically logical to claim that a run-in is bound to occur. Times can be scheduled out to urge this run-in between debaters; whatever's necessary to get it to happen. And like my opponent agrees, no judge should vote solely off of cross-ex. It's only useful to the debaters, and therefor not a voting issue, so we can do without. Because each debater is equally disabled by not having cross-ex, it's completely ok to do without. 3) Value Structures My opponent is right when he states that values are "largely incomprehensible to the laymen. " But like I've stated countless times before, it's because Debate. org would use LD format that would attract more LD debaters, and make up for this loss of appeal. Either way, a laymen could still preform his way of debating. I myself in rounds is more of a laymen than a value debater; my coaches tell me that time after time. We still need to change Debate. org for LD rather than creating a new one because it's easier to change the site than it is to create one. I've already brought this point up countless times before and it goes completely un-refuted. My opponent argues the opposite but doesn't offer any warrent whatsoever, so my method must be preferred. We'll show how this is important later on. --------- AFF case: 1) My opponent argues that Debate. org, as-is, doesn't prohibit using LD. That's the inherit problem with Debate. org as it stands today. Because people don't have to use LD, they don't have to debate as the other debater does, which creates quite a few problems within debates. I've seen it countless times before, as in this debate: . http://www.debate.org... For this reason, we must confine Debate. org to LD. 2) My opponent admits to the fact that LD debaters exist on Debate. org. In fact, he'd be lying if he said they don't, because he himself has participated in an LD debate here: . http://www.debate.org... We would not only make current LD debaters happy, but also attract more, because Debate. org would appeal to those debaters out there. ---------- So what should we vote PRO for? Keep in mind that it's unfair for my opponent to "attack" these points because I can not respond, nor address his voter points either. So let's let the judges decide which ones are legitimate. 1) Debate. org attracting more people Because you now have LD as required, you're going to appeal to those debaters and thus, the popularity of Debate. org as a tool or practice for those debaters goes up. This doesn't go strongly refuted throughout the round, so you have to carry this through as true. 2) LD makes Debate. org more civil/formatted Basically, because LD is formatted and has rules, you're going to create uniformaty throughout the site. This goes COMPLETELY unrefuted so you have to accept this as true. 3) Cross ex is entirely possible I present countless options as to this throughout the round, such as forums, live chats, scheduling these times, a more likely run in, etc etc. Because it's possible, and because Debate. org can easily format to it, you have to see LD as completely probably on Debate. org. 4) Debate. org CAN and OUGHT TO be adapted to LD formatting Two points to this. First, Debate. org, as I've presented earlier, is entirely capable of formatting to LD, like as in cross-ex. Even more, my opponent agrees to this by stating "Evidence, contention numbering, and impact calculus can easily be achieved on debate. org" and "This site, as a debate forum, already attracts LD debaters, as they can, in fact, debate in an LD format if they wish. " So Debate. org right off the bat can do it. But like I presented before, Debate. org OUGHT to because not only are there LD debaters here now, but because it would attract more due to the fact that it would appeal strictly to LD debaters. Heck, I can even say that you would educate people on the formatting of LD and more people would actually become LD debaters, which is great for the education of our youth. ------- So for those reasons, you must vote PRO. I'd like to thank my opponent for a very fun an educational debate; this topic is just as exciting now as when I created it a week ago. Thank you!