Resolved: Debate.org should not enable graphical emoticons

RE: Intro: 1) This clearly isn't a copout. First, if you look at the resolution, it clearly states nothing more than that Debate.org should enable graphical emoticons. It says nothing about these emoticons being limited to the debates. Second, looking back at my R1 (particularly my "attention getter, as well as my first contention where I say "Due to all of our discussions being heavily text based . . ."), you clearly see my usage of the term "discussion." After taking a quick glance at what a discussion is ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ), it is rather clear that we cannot equate it to a debate. Ergo, PRO's stance on me urging that GEs merely be allowed in debates is revealed for the Straw Man fallacy it is. Thus, it is not I who fears defeat in this debate, but rather PRO for denying the obvious. 2) So basically, PRO would have us have to rely on redundancy; he would have us accept constant mis-communication and repeat ourselves rather than avoid acts of mis-communication entirely through the addition of GEs. Clearly, this is absurd. My solution decreases inconvenience whereas PRO's solution merely enforces it. Re Disadvantage I: a) Now that it comes down to a matter of potential, you shall see that PRO cannot possibly maintain this argument. If we are to talk about potential, then allow me. Every message has the potential to offend someone else? Why? This is simply because mostly every message has the potential to be misunderstood. Misunderstanding causes conflict. Rather than provide an in depth explanation for this fact, I think I'll just link you as well as PRO to a rather informative article regarding this matter: http://www.articlealley.com... b) They shouldn't even be promoted equally. For instance, if a guy makes an excellent argument as to why global warming exist but relies on heavy usage of slang, should this guy's actual argument really be faulted despite the fact that it was excellent nevertheless? Or to go vice versa, let us say that the aforementioned guy is an excellent speaker (perhaps the best this world has ever seen), but presents a positively atrocious argument riddle with fallacies of all forms, does PRO mean to say that this guy should have a 50/50 shot of winning the debate? I understand how formal competitions judge, but it must be noted that formal competitions are called FORMAL competitions for a reason. It's a competition where you've got to be formal. However, on debate.org, no such ruling is in place. Rather, the main emphasis is on debating PERIOD. c) Hey, I've already given a solution that still allows GEs. PRO is simply resorting to ad nauseum. d) Sure thing: 1) http://www.debate.org... (Ragnar's sarcasm not detected) 2) http://www.debate.org... (me accused of getting hostile) 3) http://www.debate.org... (me thinking beem0r is getting hostile) 4) This very debate.PRO said he could use a good laugh, yet I am not sure as to whether or not he is mocking me or if he really does find "mis-communication" to be funny. 5) http://www.debate.org... (eyeleapy thinks Kleptin is mocking me). 6) http://www.debate.org... (eyeleapy thinks I'm getting "riled" up) 7) http://www.debate.org... (gurenman thought I was being egotistical) Each and everyone one those these pieces of evidence illustrates my point. Just imagine if the intent of each misunderstood user was posted via GE. This would have drastically decreased the chances of miscommunication. Disadvantage II (now my baby back rib) a)First off, obvious use of the straw man fallacy. I'm not encouraging anyone to trash talk. In fact, I even provided an effective means of deterring trash talk. Second, let me quote EXACTLY what PRO said" "it simply means you aren't able to show your opponent's lack of intellect by using your own intellect." So no, this isn't merely a matter of a novice taking on a veteran. This is matter of someone belittling their opponent with their "superior intellect" through debating. Debate is about finding the truth and/or being victorious in argumentation. It's not about proving how intelligent you are. Not only that, but the most intelligent person is not guaranteed to win. Debate requires far more than intelligence. You can be a genius on par with Einstein, but unless you have some knowledge of what you're debating about, knowledge of argumentation as well as some persuasive skills, your raw intelligence is meaningless. At any rate, "attempting to show that your opponent's lacks intellect (or in other words, is stupid)" is not equivalent to a novice taking on an elite. You don't have to boasts your intelligence in order to win a debate. Ergo, it is quite clear that PRO is contradicting himself. You can't simply attempt to uphold "respect of one another" in a debate round AND insist on belittling your opponent's intelligence. An elite debater can most certainly win a debate against a novice without accomplishing the latter. b) First, I was focusing on PRO's intent (which is to belittle the opponent) of having a debater provide twenty arguments. Whether or not the idea of "posting twenty arguments" alone is persuasive or not is irrelevant. Second, to pacify PRO, I would have to say that providing twenty arguments does not necessarily equate to persuasiveness. After all, you can provide twenty nonsensical arguments (like the ones I provided below) and it won't be any difference in terms of how the judges are persuaded as the goal of a persuasive argument is QUALITY, not QUANTITY. c) I've already explained how GEs don't equate to disrespect (note that PRO now says that they have the POTENTIAL for disrespect, which is a very weak argument as any message has the potential for disrespect), have provided a means to deter disrespect (even though I didn't have to), and have shown that PRO's loss of needed intellect point is truly nothing more than a contradiction of the "disrespect contention." At very least, even if you don't buy the last one, the clear facts in the first two points still remain, thus showing that a debater could do what PRO has requested AND what I have requested. Re: Contention 1 a) If books are not incapable of mis-communication, then it's clear that PRO's book point is worthless. Furthermore, note the words "if well written." Well first, even "if well written", they are still capable of mis-communication. Secondly, PRO is placing a heavy burden on users here. He wants everyone to drastically improve their writing skills or constantly redraft their posts for countless amounts of time so that they may be considered "well written." Clearly, this burden is overwhelming. On the other hand, my alternative is far less complex and time consuming. b) False. As noted by my wiki-article, "An emoticon is a symbol or combination of symbols used to convey emotional content in written or message form." In fact, emoticons have existed long before the age of the Internet. Moreover, even if emoticons do just make the internet fun, why would PRO want to deprive this site of fun? :( c) Cross apply "Disadvantage II: c" Re Contention 2: a) #1. Just because a debater is debating in favor of something, it doesn't mean their views are being reflected. In debate, often times, we are forced to defend the position we don't personally believe. #2. This is exactly what is being done when one is atempting to disprove another's views. Views which are being disproven are considered as views which don't matter (or are sub par). b) Uh, yes I have? I'm not gonna post a bunch of "things to vote off of" s