Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member.

This being the final round I will rebut my opponent and then illustrate the basic information that debate.org should make available before you become a member. My opponent said: "...that was low...That is completely irrelevant...lay off the personal attacks..." My Response: I never once said that I was referring to my opponent. It was an open ended analogy about a current event I used to make a point about "good form". My opponent chose to take it personally. I stated that "good form" would be an example of information that debate.org should make available. It would appear that my opponent views current events and analogies as "personal attacks". And when used to make a point about the topic, my opponent states that they are "irrelevant". Perhaps if Debate.org had posted information about "good form", or what would be considered a personal attack, or encouraged debaters not to take things personally unless they are stated as such, my opponent would not have misunderstood my comment. Things like this could have been avoided if debate.org had more information available before you become a member. So I thank my opponent for reinforcing the need for just such information. And to clarify so that these misfortunes can be avoided in the future I will refer to my opponent as "my opponent" and to the reading audience/voters as "you". ----- In argument against my claim that people are not informed of how long they will have to respond, My opponent said: "You can actually find that information before you become a member... He has has 02:23:51:40 remaining to post his next argument...I do not think having it beforehand is unreasonable, just unnecessary. A (good) debater should be prepared to have a small amount of time to post an argument. But in the case that he MUST know beforehand, he can always check the other debates on this website." My response: You actually cannot find that information. My opponents use of 02:23:51:40 was from one debate. And time had already lapsed on that debate. If you were to use my opponents method of searching through active debates to determining how long you have to respond, the times would be all over the place. And the actual answer of 3 days would be nowhere. Which is why debate.org should have more information available. My opponent then supports my argument by stating that having that information would not be unreasonable. Or, without the double negative, having that information would be reasonable. My opponent then brings up the point of necessity even though necessity is not the topic. My opponent says that a debater should be prepared. I agree, and if this were a traditional debate knowing how long I have to respond and how long my opponent has to respond would be part of my preparation. Preparation is another reason that debate.org should have more information available. My opponent then repeats the flawed method of determining how long debates are. _____________________ My opponent agreed with my distinction between rules and courtesy, but then asked "Why do you need to know "good form"?" My response: This is my first debate. The reason to know "good form" is to avoid the confusion from earlier. If debate.org had said "take the time to get to know your opponent so that you can avoid inadvertently making an argument that your opponent may take personally.", then this whole mess could have been avoided in the first place. Yet another reason that debate.org should have more information available. _______ My opponent stated: "Once again, the information was available to you. If you see my time model, you can check the time in all the types of debates on this site and see how long each round lasts beforehand." My response: Once again, my opponent's time model does not work. And my opponent only addressed the issue of time, not the limit on characters. There is not a real way to determine how many characters a debater can use in each round. Knowing how many characters you are able to use per round is another example of information that debate.org should have made available. ______ When I made the comment of "… I don't want debate.org to tell me how to be a good debater. But I do I want debate.org to tell me about debate.org.". My opponent said that my comment was completely irrelevant to the topic. My opponent claiming irrelevance makes little to sense because the topic is about debate.org giving more information. Perhaps my opponent was referring to my desires as being irrelevant, but due to apparent previous toe stepping, I won't speculate any farther than that on my opponent's beliefs. Suffice to say that debate.org giving more information about debate.org is relevant to the topic of "Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member." ____ For the most part my opponent argues that debate.org should not have more information available before you become a member because that information is already available. My opponent came to this conclusion by suggesting the method of search and infer. That simply does not work. No amount of searching and inferring will tell you that you always have 3 days to make your next argument. No amount of searching and inferring will reveal that the 3 day time limit cannot be extended or condensed on a debate. No amount of searching and inferring will show that you must make your argument in 8000 characters or less. No amount of searching and inferring indicates that the 8000 character limit cannot be changed. No amount of searching and inferring will tell you exactly how many rounds you are allowed, because that changes on each debate. This information is readily available after you become a member, but the topic is addressing the issue before membership. When not the using faulty "search and infer" model my opponent argues against the disclosure of such information by stating that a debater should not need it, or that debate should be a challenge. My response: Knowing the rules does not remove the challenge. Simply making that information available for those who would like to know it would not take anything away from those who would prefer to jump right in. I am arguing for more information to be available beforehand so that you can choose your style and approach. My opponent seems to be saying that you should create your own approach as long as your style includes jumping in blind. I think Henry Ford said something similar about the color of model Ts. And I apologize if my opponent is a fan of the model T. It was an analogy and should not be take personally. ____ If you are the kind of person that likes to jump right in, then Vote Pro. If you prefer to know what you are jumping into before you jump, then Vote Pro. If you think that people should at least have the opportunity to know what they are getting into before they get into it, then Vote Pro. The only reason that I can see to Vote Con is because you both like to jump right in AND you feel that everyone else should want the same thing that you do. If however you feel that people are different and should be allowed to make their own choices then Vote Pro, because Debate.org should have more information available before you become a member. And I would like to thank my opponent for making my first debate an interesting and educating one. It's just unfortunate that Debate.org forced me to learn this way.