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

First numbered list: 1. It does apply. He should have actually READ the topic, and at least skimmed the opening argument. HE made a mistake. Don't try and blame it on the guy who made the topic. 2. If they don't make sense, aren't clear, or aren't a resolution, then it only hurts the instigator. He will likely not get a contender very soon, and lose when he does. It cannot hurt the contender, because the contender knows beforehand. You need not take any part in a debate if the bad grammar disgusts you so. Also, if you need to read a title 10 times to understand your position, you shouldn't be here. Read it ONCE, but read it CAREFULLY. Know what you're getting into beforehand, or you'll only have yourself to blame. 3. You don't advocate glancing? An excerpt from your #1: "Providing a crisp, clean tag of what the topic is about would allow people to glance at it and decide whether or not to take it." Why must we write our topic titles to cater to glancers? We shouldn't. If you want to glance at an argument or a position, that's your deal. don't blame it on the writer when glancing just wasn't enough on your part. 4. I'm confused as to what you mean. I was simply saying that if the topic is unclear, there's the whole opening argument too. If you can't figure out the instigator's position from that, you're either clueless or he had no argument. 5. With 'not a good system' I was only attempting to show the power of using not and an opposite adjective. I wasn't claiming that it was a double negative. Also, contenders don't need to assert the opposite claim, they just have to not support the first claim. If you say the PS3 is bad, I just have to show that it's not. It doesn't have to be good. Also, consider this debate. You're asserting that people NEED to change their resolutions. Do you expect me to argue that they NEED to continue using bad grammar or whatever else? No. Well, hopefully not. I just have to show that they don't need to change. Second numbered list: 1. There is a critical difference between the types of double negatives you refer to and the ones commonly known as grammar mistakes. To be a grammar mistake, one has to actually mean the opposite of what is literally written: "I don't want nothing" is an example. However, you're talking about a whole 'nother type of double negative - one where the meaning is clear: "Income tax is not unconstitutional" "Don't leave the castle walls unprotected" "The man was not without his merits" "I can't disagree with that" These are all grammatically correct. You hopefully understand these sentences, as does anyone else who understands English. Double negatives are fine, as long as you meant what you said, rather than the single-negative version. 2. But you can expect him to read it, not just assume based on the presence of a few words. And it's not the instigator's burden. It's the instigator's burden to make the topic reflect what they want to debate. Not unconstitutional IS what that instigator meant, so it is not his fault in any way. 3. 4. See that? You understood my sentence without me using bad grammar. Whatever "confusion" you had was likely contrived. Like you not knowing what I meant by the ideas - it's obvious I meant the ideas behind the words. "It's not the words that count, but rather the ideas." That's no more clear about what I meant by the ideas. And "they make side" meant the same as "They are what make the side." I probably should have used a different word, like argument, but that's not a grammar problem. You say no one will be persuaded by bad grammar in arguments. Do you also think people should have to only use premium-quality arguments? No one will be persuaded by pathetic ramblings, right? It's their choice to use bad grammar, since it only hurts them. 5. I am annoyed, but people need not bow to my whims. Some people are annoyed by disagreement, do you intend to eliminate that as well? Of course not. the fact that you're annoying someone should not control what you do, especially not on the internet. If you're annoyed, deal with it. I do. Neither are they obligated to change things up just because _you_ think it'll be more educational if they do. Let them make incoherent statements. They'll learn from their own mistakes, and eventually they might learn how to properly communicate ideas. Until then, deal with it. Last numbered list: 1. This site is not about education. To different people, it's about different things. Some want to spread their intellectual seed. Some want to prove they can deal some pwnage, some want to learn more about other people's viewpoints, some want to simply improve their debating skills. In any case, it does not detract from the education of the site, since you don't have to participate in those debates. It can be to you exactly as if they hadn't made a debate at all. 2. What if the author wants to confuse you? What if he doesn't care if people understand his argument or not. 3. There is no reason, not for you or I at least. This is why we don't make non-resolutional resolutions. To each his own though, perhaps someone else who does has their own reasons (which could include stupidity. Stupidity isn't outlawed on debate.org, nor should it be). 4. It is not the instigators duty to address all your wants. He can make his debate however he wants to. Just as you can accept whatever open challenges you want to. I'm not saying poor grammar helps anyone. I'm saying we don't need to force correct grammar on people. Let them learn themselves, just as many of us did. To sum it all up, there's no reason instigators need to cater to your every whim. If you don't like their writing style, their grammar skills, their word choice, or whatever else, don't take the debate. And if you do, don't blame your opponent for you taking his debate. Con 4 emperor.