Debate topics on this website (debate.org) should be critiqued

Thanks for a great debate RougeFox. ==BOP== RougeFox accepts my burden of proof throughout this round – that he must prove that 50% (plus one) of the resolutions on this site are bad enough to need critiquing. He has failed this burden. At any given time, about one fourth of topics are created by established DDO members, so they are well worded, and another one half of topics come directly from competitive debate (Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Policy debate) so they are automatically worded well. Scanning three of the most recent topics I've seen, they are perfectly well worded: "Be it resolved that Genetically Modified (GM) agriculture is beneficial to society." "The school year should be year-round (12 months)" "'Black' Americans should not be referred to as ‘African American'" RougeFox thus fails the BOP that he has accepted throughout this round. ==His case== ---Topic quality--- He drops all 3 KEY arguments here: Extend the #2: resolutional analysis solves the problems with badly worded topics. Remember, even if a topic is vague or badly worded, the contender can offer definitions and analysis that make the debate much more clear. This solves the problem. Contenders will not accept topics when the round 1 is super unclear, the topic is unclear, and there is no room for the contender to offer his or her own definitions and interpretation of the topic. Extend the #3: cases matter far more than topic wording Remember, even if the topic is unclear, a good case should clarify what the instigator means by the topic. Remember my example: I had a recent GREAT debate on "birth vs acquired disabilities," which is a vague topic, but the instigator's case made the debate perfectly clear. Another recent example: a topic was "the reality of God" but it became clear from the instigator's well written case that he meant "God exists" and the contender should argue that God doesn't exist. Extend my analysis that critiques should not help the instigator with his case – this is unfair. Debaters debate solo, not with the help of the DDO community. Also, I made an argument here that "fixing" the topic often means making it easier for the instigator to win, which is unfair. Extend the #5: signaling Badly worded topics signal that the debater in question does not intend to put that much time or effort into the debate. Having DDO members fix the topic would eliminate an important signal to contenders. At the point where my opponent drops all 3 refutations, he loses his case, since his other standards for a good debate (education, fun, recognition, etc) all stem from the assumption that critiques are necessary or desirable to improve topic quality. The first two dropped refutations prove critiques are unnecessary to improve topic quality (contender analysis and the instigator's case solve); the latter refutation (signaling) proves that improving topic quality is undesirable because it eliminates an important piece of information. ---Education--- *the same educational value can be provided through critiques* Again, this doesn't answer my specific argument here. If someone wants to debate the topic as pro on "Obama was born in Zimbabwe," who am I to critique his topic and tell him all the reasons he is wrong. He will learn more from actually debating someone on that topic than merely reading my critique and abandoning his debate entirely. ---Fun--- If someone wants to do something silly or unconventional, DDO members should not shame him/her out of doing it. *Members can understand the purpose of a topic. The instigator and contender also understand the purpose* Not responsive. DDO members might understand the purpose, think the purpose is stupid, and shame the instigator. Also, in saying "the instigator and contender understand the purpose of a topic," my opponent cold concedes the entire debate. The only reason for a critique is to make the topic clearer to the contender. If the contender understands the purpose of all topics, then critiques are unnecessary. ---Challenge/winning--- *He makes the assumption that debaters on this site are not intelligent enough to provide critiques which would balance resolutions* Not that they're not intelligent, but because the advice is directed at the instigator, critiques are more likely to give the instigator advice as to ways to make it harder for the contender to win, by eliminating some of the possible strategies that the contender might take. C1) dropped in previous round to prove C3 C2) Jokes *Non-unique* My argument is unique to critiques. Users like brian_eggleston might trick n00bs into debating utterly ridiculous resolutions. C3) Delay Remember, my opponent said in the previous round that: "Two conflicting critiques would be evaluated and debated." This would lead to an infinite string of debates between DDO members on the comments section about how to tweak the topic or whether it is a good topic. Debaters learn more from starting a debate immediately rather than waiting a week to read through hundreds of comments. *My opponent says that debaters can ignore the comments until later and start the debate anyway* If our advice will be ignored, why should DDO members take the time to write critiques? *Contender would be better off with a higher quality resolution* Contenders can and do refuse to accept if the topic isn't to their liking. If it already is, the debate should start immediately. *I have met the burden of proof because my opponent stated,"topics cannot be perfectly worded". This means all resolutions have room to improve and thus, all resolutions should be critiqued.* Nothing is ever perfect. This proves my point that my opponent supports infinite critiquing of topics, without any actual debating occurring. C4) Pointless If a contender accepts, the topic can no longer be changed, so critiques are pointless unless the instigator checks the comments section every few minutes. *it provides future reference for the community* I don't know what this means, but my opponent has assumed throughout this debate that whatever he means by "the DDO community" is a bunch of super-smart, highly ethical, and serious people. If he concedes that the community has a lot to learn, he concedes my arguments regarding unconstructive, useless, or confusing criticism. C6) Unconstructive criticism *It can be looked past* Not always because 1) newbies may not know when DDO members are joking and 2) my example in C7 proves that people take critiques personally. C7) Hurt feelings Extend my example of the transgender individual who quit DDO after being ridiculed by critiques of her topic and case. *non-unique* No, people who want to avoid trolls could avoid the forums and stick to debating. C8) Destroys DDO user experience – due to all the reasons above No need to repeat. ==Round summary== Vote con because: 1. My opponent fails his BOP and doesn't prove that critiques are WIDELY necessary 2. Topics don't need to be clarified because: a) instigators' cases will clarify b) if not, contenders' definitions/analysis will clarify 3. Badly spelled/worded topics are an important signal to contenders not to accept 4. New members cannot differentiate good advice from bad/joke advice 5. Too many critiques will seriously delay debates 6. Critiques stifle innovation, destroy education, and turn sensitive members away from the site