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

As I said, this will be brief because I have very little time. What this debate comes down to is whether critiques will be helpful to improve this website. I think that it does for the following reasons. Topic quality will be improved. If topics are being critiqued, debaters will learn what makes topics effective by weighing the community's opinions. This, over time, will improve topic quality. If an instigator knows his topic will be critiqued, it provides incentive for him/her to word the topic more effectively. My opponent makes the assumption that quality relates to seriousness, but it does not. I have provided a definition of quality to prove this. Merriam Websters Online defines it as "degree of excellence" (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I will now go through the purposes of debate and show why critiquing would be helpful for them Education -Since topic quality will be improved, there will be more effective debates and more education -The critiques themselves will provide educational value because they teach about resolutions *My opponent states that resolutional analysis will be educational and he says that resolutional analysis needs effective argumentation. -This is true, but the same educational value can be provided through critiques. The difference is, with critiques, not only is the wording and structure of the topic discussed, providing educational, but also the issues are discussed. Going back the the Afghanistan example, the resolution could be critiqued, providing educational value, and the arguments about Afghanistan can be debated providing even more education. Thus, critiques help this purpose Fun -Higher quality topics would provide more effective and fun debate. *Stifle Innovation -Members can understand the purpose of a topic. The instigator and contender also understand the purpose. Thus, this is not relevant because 'fun' topics will be debated anyway. -Innovation will not be stifled because the "doomed" topic will be debated in addition to the various comments. *Seriousness - "Quality" is not equal to seriousness -Resolutional Analysis, which my opponent suggests as an alternative, is not as fun as a "fun" resolution. Challenge/Winning/ect. -My opponent's rebuttal is not sufficient. He makes the assumption that debaters on this site are not intelligent enough to provide critiques which would balance resolutions. Higher quality resolutions would be more balanced because balance is one of the most important parts of a resolution *C1) Conflicting Advice -This would provide education to all the members involved. The critiques could be evaluated as the debate unfolds because they would still help future resolutions instigated by the members involved *C2) Jokes -Never responded to it being non-unique, thus, this must not be looked to *C3) Delay -See my response to C1. -Contender would be better off with a higher quality resolution, so the point about starting the debate must not be looked to *C4) Pointless -Even if the topic is not changed, it provides future reference for the community. Thus, it still provides education *C5) Bait and Switch -His anecdote proves this would non-unique to critiques -Critiques would not change a topic from being about, for example, Afghanistan to steamboats. *C6)Unconstructive Criticism - It can be looked past *C7)Hurt Feeling -Non-unique because of trolls on forums and this occurred before critiques *C8) Destroys DDO user experience - Non-unique. Trolls will be trolls. - Those who are deemed by the community "too stupid, too bad at spelling, ect. " will be turned away anyway after loosing and being ridiculed even without critiques. 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. You should vote pro for the following reasons: -My opponent has failed to prove how most his contentions are unique to critiques -My opponent has not linked his contentions directly to critiques effectively, the con's case does not carry much weight. -My impacts outweigh his. My impact of improved quality outweighs his of turning a few people away. These people wold be unlikely to stick around anyway because the people who would be turned away would be ineffective debaters who are not willing to learn. -As I showed above, I have met the burden of proof