Resolved: That debate.org's 'big issues' should be changed.

First of all, I did not forfeit the debate. It is NOT a rule that one unanswered round automatically forfeits a debater, nor should we assume failure due to one missed argument, especially for the Con position who gets to speak last. I would like voters to keep in mind that this is not "real" debate; this is an online website and I too am only human with outside interferences getting in the way of my hobby. Now without further adieu, Yes, the "big issues" portion of this site CAN get a debate started, however, not always. I believe that people who enjoy debating already know what the "big issues" are and therefore would start debates involving those topics regardless of whether or not they were spelled out for us in a specific portion of the site. Furthermore, just because the big issues CAN start a debate doesn't mean that they DO. I have debated things that are not included on the list; most people don't take on every single topic provided in a debate either. My opponent also states that the profile is someone's "personal page" where we can see what they're all about. I disagree. How can you get to know someone via a few "In Favor" or "Against" buttons? First of all the person could be lying completely. I know someone who made things up on his profile that were untrue just to be a jerk. Thus this reasoning is unreliable. Second, not everybody argues what they personally agree with. In actuality I am against abortion but have often found it more favorable to debate the contrary. This fact also negates your point. Furthermore, I don't think it's "more helpful to know about a person while debating them" for the reasons that I have mentioned... they're unreliable... and also because in "real" debate you don't get the opportunity to know too much about your opponent. Instead the debate should be based on each individual's presentation of facts and rebuttals, not what he or she believes in on a personal basis. My opponent moves on to say (concede?), "Also, just because it is pointless, it does not mean it shouldn't be changed. This whole website is unnessecary; it's just for fun, but that does not mean it can not be changed." My opponent is clearly mistaken. There is a big difference between pointless and unnecessary. This website IS unnecessary but it is NOT pointless. It serves a functional purpose, whereas the "big issue" section serves a purpose but it is not entirely functional as I have already explained. Therefore there is no reason to change it to make it a more elaborate version of a dysfunctional system. If we were to change it to make it functional, that is very well possible however outside of the parameteres that my opponent expressed in Round 1. My opponent states, "A debate is not to ask question on what someone believes, it is to debate if that belief is right or not." Again I ask: WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING ONE'S PERSONAL BELIEFS? That is not the purpose of debate. We are not evangelists trying to persuade people to see our point of view. The purpose of debate is to expand knowledge and ideas and hear opposing views that help us form our own opinions and become more educated. On a competitive level, debate is a 'sport' in which the purpose is to dismantle your opponent using specific strategy, tactics, and verbal superiority. It is a challenge. And again, it has NOTHING to do with your opponent's views. In 'real debate' you are assigned a topic and a position. What your opponent's true beliefs are do not matter at all. My opponent claims that sometimes it would be more beneficial to see where someone lies on an issue, so they could challenge them specifically to a debate rather than select the "First Come" option. Again, I don't know how many times I have to reiterate that one's personal beliefs do not determine how well they can or cannot debate a subject. Furthermore, if someone wants to debate a policy debater specifically, as in my opponent's example, then one can specify that in their opening argument. Also, just because a resolution was the topic of a policy debate does not mean that only policy debaters can effectively argue that issue. Pro agrees that what constitutes a "big issue" is subjective and that not all of our big issues are mentioned in the section of dispute. He also points out that one topic in particular to support this is the economic stimulus package which currently takes up 3/5 of the current challenges. I think this further proves my point that if one deems something a "big issue" to them or in the country, they can and will debate it regardless of whether or not it is included in the big issues section of the site. My opponent's Points 5 and 6 are redundant and I have already addressed them previously in this round. His Point 7 claims that the "indifferent" choice on this website is confusing, because you don't know whether or not someone is really indifferent or if they just don't understand the question. AGAIN- WHO CARES? ONE'S OPINION IS NOT WHAT DEBATE IS ABOUT! I cannot reiterate that enough. But to go back to my previous argument regarding this point, if someone doesn't understand a topic, they can simply research it online or via other sources. If they are apathetic, it doesn't matter. And even if they are in favor or against something, it STILL doesn't matter. One's misunderstanding or complete lack thereof an issue does not only result in an "indifferent" optionn but sometimes the WRONG option... i.e. in favor or against... Do you really think that everyone on this site knows what they're talking about? Many site users, especially those under 16, really don't know how they feel about much of anything and instead tend to follow the opinions of their parents and peers. With that said, I think I have effectively continued to prove over and over why these buttons are completely unnecessary and pointless, or rather entirely dysfunctional and unreliable, therefore pointless. So to respond finally to your main points listed, here we go: 1. The confusion about whether to put 'for' or 'against.' -- As I've argued over and over, it doesn't matter 2. It doesn't cover all of the big issues. -- As I've argued over and over, it doesn't matter 3. It doesn't allow you to put your thoughts on a subject. -- As I've argued over and over, it doesn't matter. If someone wants to find out your views or you wish to express your own, either challenge a debate or accept a debate regarding that topic. Not everyone on the internet wants to know or even cares about your opinion. 4. It doesn't allow for a more expressive 'strongly agree' or 'strongly disagree,' or a more accurate 'indifferent' -- As I've argued, it doesn't matter. 5. It does not have a 'what's this?' button. -- No, if you put the mouse over an issue on the page, it provides a short one sentence blurb that elaborates on the topic and lets you know very briefly what you are either in for or against. In short, all of my opponent's proposals are completely unnecessary and do not serve a functioning purpose. I have refuted each and every one of his claims to the max and then some. Furthermore, my main argument against it being changed is the fact that there are other bigger and better projects that I feel are more useful and fun than the subject at hand that the webmaster could be working on instead. I'm also in strong opposition with my opponent when he claims that knowing how one feels about certain issues would help us decide who we add to our "friends list" once this feature gets implemented. He is implying that in order to be "friends" even online, people have to agree on the "big issues"... what he's saying is that this divides people and provides for an easy way to prejudge them. Is this what we want or need on debate.org? Even more prejudice then there already is? I think I have more than adequately stated my case and made up for my missed round. Sorry Pluto but this is not a win in the bag for you.