Fish are Awesome

I wish to point out a few things. 4. I really like fish. I think it could be a good debate, if my opponent was genuine. But (s)he is not, and seems thus far to waste my time. Despite all my analysis, by opponent couldn't be bothered by more than a few words. This is rude, and makes debate less fun. 5. The first is that my opponent has, as of now, three debates going on. This is the same number needed to vote. Thus, my opponent put up this debate, not because (s)he felt that defending fish is particularly important, but that having completed three debates apparently is. a. In case it changes, the debates are "Am I in the Truman Show," "Fish are Awesome," and "Has modern man advanced too much?" b. IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, my opponent gave very at least one response that is less than a sentence long. In my case, my opponent did not even bother to reply, because my opponent wants to waste debates to get voting privileges. c. This is a condition not unique to my opponent. Many people simply make three unimportant topics to try to simply finish their voting privileges. At least vote my opponent down. 6. The second is that my opponent forfeited the first round, which shows that demonstrating that "Fish are Awesome" is apparently not important to my opponent; a. Thus, this debate would, under ordinary circumstances, be a waste. I will not let it be a waste. I will use this opportunity to show through debate how trolling is problematic. b. I believe that debate has the power to change minds. I genuinely do. That is why I am debating this here now. My opponent apparently isn't bothered, because (s)he didn't respond to this debate. 7. Off round (because my opponent doesn't seem to care about the debate), my opponent admitted that "not many people are opposed to fish being awesome." This is exactly my point, and my opponent admitted that. 8. I don't even really know what side I'm on, what kind of fish we're talking about, how the round can be judged, whether the first round is acceptance or not, or what the definition of "awesome" is. I am given nothing. My opponent should be docked points for vagueness, lack of brightline (ways of cheating), and general unfairness and lack of education. Also, this shows that my opponent doesn't care about the debate. Here's my critique of dropping rounds in general: I will add some further points. While I understand that life gets in the way, I must add some of the problems with forfeiting rounds. A. It's rude. I have spend a lot of time constructing these arguments, so for someone to simply not contend with them is very disappointing, and possibly a tad disrespectful. This might be reason enough to penalize my opponent. I don't know how you respond to rudeness judge, but if you respond to it negatively this might be something to consider in your final analysis. This is additionally rude, because I though my opponent invited me to debate, but that was shown not to be the case. B. It's bad for debate. We are not able to come to a more educated understanding of the topic if only one side responds. I will have no idea what my opponent was thinking when (s)he wrote "Fish are awesome." I will have learned virtually nothing. In addition to that, people who read this debate will only witness one side of what ought to be a two-sided issue. Demonstrating two sides to an issue to increase education is what debate is all about, but my opponent has done the opposite of this. Even if my opponent debates in the next round, I will have lost an opportunity to respond, so therefore I will not be able to engage in my opponent's opinions. Such a case would not be a debate but a mere coinciding of opinions. Anyone who reads this debate in that case would incorrectly assume that I have no argument against my opponent's case, since I would be unable to respond to it. Thus, because Kavstar forfeited this round, this becomes less of a debate (since I can't engage in dialogue). Because (s)he has removed the validity of this debate and made this all a waste of time, I believe that you would be justified in voting for me in this debate for that reason alone. In addition, my opponent dropped all my rounds which shows that all my original points (1-3) were accurate. Remember, my opponent does not care about this debate. 1. (S)He has made three debates only, demonstrating (s)he wants to get voting privileges without doing work. 2. (S)He previously gave one sentence replies in ALL OF HER DEBATES 3. (S)He admits that few people would ever think fish aren't awesome. What does this topic even mean, anyway!? 4. (S)He dropped her round (making me wait), which shows not only rudeness, unfairness, but also that (s)he doesn't care about the debate. 5. (S)He gives me nothing to go on about what this debate even is about in the first or second rounds. How am I supposed to debate that way? Additionally, 1. I had to accept this round to avoid trolling 2. I intend to stop trolling through this round 3. Judges who don't like trolling have to vote for me 4. By not replying to all of our points, my opponent is tricking us into debating, but actually wastes our time. See the "Has the modern man advanced too much?" for an example of how my opponent does not seem to care about the debate and wastes the time of others who want to genuinely debate. Just so that no one can say that I haven't debated the issue, I will say this brief sentence. I am not giving into my opponent, but just making sure all my bases are covered. Ahem, "NOT all fish are awesome. There is lots of pollution. Dolphins are killed for example by tuna fishers. They are not "awesome." They're in pain." http://www.allaboutwildlife.com... Again, this is simply so that judges will recognize that I CAN debate this topic if I want to, but I am choosing not to so that I can instead advocate the importance of not trolling to change my opponent's mind and also the minds of those reading. Judges, please indicate that trolling topics should not be made, and only people genuinely wanting to debate should debate, by voting for me on your ballot. Conduct: a. I am advocating for better conduct in all debates. b. I am also treating my opponent with respect, and yet challenging my opponent by suggesting that debate is more important and takes more time than a twitter update. c. My opponent has rudely made me wait three days without defending her/himself. d. My opponent has also made debate less debate like by making only me speak and not speaking her/his own mind. e. Additionally, my opponent has lowered the education of the debate by talking about something that is uncontested Grammar: My opponent should have capitalized "are" in the title: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com... Arguments: All of my arguments are uncontested. I have clearly demonstrated why I am taking this debate and proved with all evidence that can be reasonably be expected that my opponent has disregarded this debate. All of my above arguments have been ignored by my opponent. My opponent has given me no way to debate, so I have made my own space and debated something truly important. I even debated about fish. Personal Testimony: In my life I have used debate as a means to get along in the world. I'm not very good at socializing, so debate has been a great help in this regard. I believe that I can express myself through dialogue. However, some people simply aren't appreciative of debate, and think of it as a joke. I have truly found a place that I feel I can call home in DDO, but certain people spit on debate by making a topic and never touching it again. This is just like kids at school. Vote Con Sources: I have two great sources, and my opponent has zero. http://www.quickanddirtytips.com... http://www.allaboutwildlife.com...