Debate.org should implement "open boxes" instead of "drop-and-select" for religion.

You know the things I said about me believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) last round? I lied. I'm just a guy that doesn't believe in any supernatural powers. Drop those points. Since they are no longer advocated in this round, he can't make any impact whatsoever out of those args by turning them. Anything in this round that is based off of my "belief" in FSMism or IPUism is no longer relevant. This debate, as all of you can see by the topic, is about whether or not Debate. org should implement open boxes for religion instead of a drop-and-select option. With that said, The thesis of his case to negate the resolution is that there is potential abuse. I have several other responses which I'll place in the line-by-line respones, but this whole idea of "abuse is the reason why we shouldn't have this" doesn't make sense at all. It's not a reason to negate at all. (These next two arguments are to the thesis of his case, therefore they are counted as overviews. If he does not respond to these refutations, he has necessarily lost the debate. ) 1) Absolutely everything can be abused in some way. Impact turn: His thesis is that we shouldn't be going PRO on this topic because it can be abused. Under this line of reasoning things would become extremely insensible, because absolutely everything has the capability of being abused. His usage of the precautionary principle is bad because everyone would end up just not moving at all due to Chaos Theory (the Butterfly Effect). 2) There's a price for everything we do. Allowing users on this site to create their own debates, create their own topics, and create their own arguments, necessarily opens up this site to abuse; having people throwing profane words at each other, and using personal insults. This is the cost of creativity. This impacts into the debate in 2 ways: First, he needs to prove that by going PRO on this topic, that the people offended by the people on this site that are going to be offended by abusers of the system somehow outweigh, or are better than, the people who will benefit from being able to say what they truly are, and Second, if he's going to keep his position on this topic, he will need to show why the use of the precautionary principle on this specific topic will create specific effects, otherwise, we'll just have to assume that he wants us all to sit on our beds, close our eyes, and do nothing because we're inevitably going to make SOMEONE feel bad. Of course, if he advocates that I'd be happy to debate that as well. Line-by-Line. ("You" is now my FiredUpRepublican) "The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Unicorn are products of Atheists taking an aim at Christianity. The "religions" are a farce and work to only bring attention to how ridiculous they believe organized religion to be. To say you "believe" in such ridiculous rhetoric is just adding fuel to the fire in terms of being offensive to those who do believe in God and follow a religion. " 1) It doesn't matter if the history and the beginning of this religion is abhorrent; heck, Christianity advocated the stoning of people that work on sundays and women not being able to speak in church! You don't see me saying that suddenly we shouldn't let Christians do X Y and Z actions just because their church used to do it. 2) Who are you to say what's a farce? Why are you dehumanizing those of minor religions? ?? 3) Prove it. Prove that I'm just "adding fuel to the fire". 4) Ridiculous? I think a lot of people think that a burning bush, a great flood, the Ark, and the notion that the world is only 4000 years old are really ridiculous. So what? It doesn't mean we should not go PRO. "Debate. org is apparently a place that is supposed to be a cut above as far as intelligence, respect, and debating. Why promote such blatantly offensive things to get a rise out of opposing views and cause an all out verbal war? " 1) What does "a cut above" mean? ?? 2) Why does this link? 3) Or matter? 4) So opposing views are bad? Why are you on debate. org? "To say that you are a "member" of an internet "church" that isn't even serious is just baiting for a Christian to come to this debate and debate Christianity. But I refuse to do so, I will only go this far with it:" 1) Who are you to say what's serious and what's not? 2) Uhh I didn't make this debate to "bait a Christian". "Your argument will most likely be that Christianity is made up too. Christianity has had more evidence going for it than the Flying Spaghetti Monster will ever have. Christianity is the number one religion of the world, the most controversial religion in the world, and the most studied. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just childish Atheist tactics to take a shot at Christians and other religions. It accomplishes nothing as far as validity, and isn't really funny as most educated people reject moronic behaviors. " 1) I never argued this. 2) Not a reason to negate. 3) I would like to see this "evidence" for Christianity 4) FSMism has their own holy text as well. Equal evidence. K) Do you mean "evidence of truth"? ?? Cause I would love to see your citations. 5) I responded to this already 6) This does not negate the topic, all you're doing is insulting everybody that honestly believes that there is a flying spaghetti monster and there is an invisible pink unicorn. 7) STRAIGHT TURN: HE'S ADVOCATING A SYSTEM WHERE ALL WE CAN DO FOR THE FAITH INPUT IS A DROP AND SELECT, EITHER "Christian" OR "OTHER". HE'S SAYING THAT "CHRISTIANITY IS THE NUMBER ONE RELIGION IN THE WORLD" THEREFORE WE SHOULD ACTUALLY INSTEAD HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE THIS SITE BASICALLY GLORIFIES CHRISTIANS. THIS ARGUMENT IS TRUE BECAUSE HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY BRIGHTLINE FOR WHAT RELIGIONS SHOULD BE ON THE DROP AND SELECT SYSTEM AND WHICH SHOULDN'T; HE JUST SAYS "MORONIC RELIGIONS ARE WHY WE SHOULDN'T GO PRO". BUT "MORONIC" IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE; WE DON'T KNOW WHERE HIS BRIGHTLINE FOR A RELIGION IS AT. IS IT AT 1,000,000 BELIEVERS? IS IT AT 2,000,000? HMM? HE PROVIDED NO DEFINITIONS SO AT THIS POINT WE MUST ASSUME THAT HE ADVOCATES A CHRISTIAN/NONCHRISTIAN SYSTEM. AT THAT POINT WE'RE DEHUMANIZING PEOPLE EVEN MORE THAN WE ARE NOW; WE'RE SILENCING EVEN MORE PEOPLE.