That filling out the big issues on one's DDO profile is beneficial

==Introduction==Nice argument Con. I'm going to assume that I am allowed to post constructive arguments and refutations...so...==My arguments==C1: Finding Friends and RivalsThe process in which you meet new people that can present some sort of benefit is simplified through the big issues. Generally, people have specific issues they prefer to discuss or argue. The field of politics is simply too broad and spread out between different issues for you to be able to list your self as a certain ideology or part of a political party and hope to find others that have similar interests as you.The big issues also allow you to find people with possibly similar views. The big issues currently have the ability to measure your compatability or "agreement rate" with another individual - shown right about the issues. One can assume that with high agreement rates you are likely to become friends with them - rather than meeting an ideological enemy and constantly arguing with them.On the other hand, finding people who disagree with you on a large amount of issues allow you to find debate rivals - and further discover and redefine your position or perhaps strengthen your belief through the act of debating. Nontheless, a DDO with the benefit of finding people to debate would be much more preferable to one where you have no clue who believes what.C2: Increasing ActivityThis is mainly an expansion of the fact that you can accurately find new debaters who you disagree with. This is important because without the Big Issues - your positions are largely unknown. This discourages other people from debating you, since they do not have any idea to as what your beliefs are. Furthermore, there will always exist other users who actually fill out their Big Issues option, creating a favorable alternative towards you.The situation is quite simple - I would rather look through a few profiles to find someone I want to debate, rather than have to message one debater and find out his position (not to mention have to wait for him to respond). There also exists the possibility of a random challenge from another debater, based on your position on your big issues. These challenges, in my experiance, usually occur in the form of a private message or a profile comment, asking you to defend or explain your positions. These occurance create a positive effect in the sense that your own personal beliefs are further solidified or developed. ==My opponent's arguments==C1: Big issues limit the range of debatesMy opponent makes the mistake that the big issues have the sole purpose of finding and isolating who you wish to debate. On the other hand, filling out the big issues allow fellow members, who you haven't met yet, gain and understanding of your ideology and beliefs. This is the actual reason why most of the time, challenges or questions occur (through the form of private messaging or commenting).The Big Issues also serve as an important form of first inviting debaters. To my experiance, members without any filled out details naturally deflect possible debate challenges, simply by disencouraging or disincentivizing other debaters from talking to you.This will probably be best shown through personal experiances that both my opponent and I went through in the process of finding what to debate. I had originally gone to his profile to see possible debating subjects, however came across the lack of any detail in his Big Issues. This directly resulted in me losing interest and direction towards as what we could debate.At this point, it lied in my opponent's hands to as what we choose to debate for the most part. In a more general outlook, this basically means that the member at hand no longer has the benefit of other debaters challenging him coupled with him challenging other debaters, but rather only has the option of challenging other debaters. In the end, possible benificial debates are lost, since other members lose interest in you.My opponent also attempt to make the argument that the Big Issues naturally firm you in your positions, however I would argue the opposite. To my understanding, challenges on your beliefs can only help you improve them, unless if you are a stubborn person at heart. Debates have the possibility of resulting in one person changing or altering their debates as a direct effect of the debate. The most obvious example that comes to mind would be LordKnukle's debate on the death penalty [1].Continuing on, Con makes the argument that DA (Devil's Advocate) debates are among the best and most enjoyable debates. This argument doesn't make any sense, since accepting a challenge and taking a side that you do not support is not very hard. I don't consider starting a debate and putting yourself in a DA position very mind-blowing either. If anything, I'd say that not filling out your BI (Big Issues) can result in a general lack of interest in your profile. I haven't seen any DA debates that were caused because someone didn't fill out the BI.C2: The BI do not lead to constructive debatesI'd like to point out that Juggle actually does plan on improving the BI in the following few days with updated issues [1]. Also, while I might have to concede that a small minority of BI options can be quite pointless, the majority of the issues listed can be expected to last a while (ie. Abortion, Death Penalty, etc).Concerning his example of the George Bush "Issue", whether or not his term has passed up doesn't mean a judgement of his job as a president is useless. The debate on George Bush might be pointless to you in your point of view, however others have differing views towards whether or not George Bush was a good president. Evaulations of past events or occurances are important because they can result in improved future decisions (ie. Should we elect another Republican?). His decisions in general can reflect on the entire Republican Party and its credibility. His other point was that some issues are too broad for debaters to understand what exactly a person means when they say they are "Pro" on that specific issue.However, this argument is outdated, because of the fact that many vague issues are being removed, such as "United States", "Patriotism", "PETA", etc [2].Also, the option of filling out the BI even on a vague issue is much more preferable than choosing not to fill it out at all. At the very least, there is an increased possibility that another debater will confront you on your stance, as choosing not to fill it out seems to give off the implication that you have no opinion or do not care.My opponent argues how different people intrepret certain issues, which can result in nonproductive debates. However, whether or not debaters agree on specific issues doesn't affect the overall issue or subject.For example, my opponent brings up the example of abortion. In this case, the subject wishes to argue that life begins at conception. However, the subject's opponent agrees and argues that murder is morally acceptable. In the end, this debate can still occur - arguing whether or not murder should be allowed. Debates like this open up people's mind and allow the to judge issues more accurately. In shorter words, these debates answer the question "Why?"C3: BI are brokenI do not have much space left. However, the majority of this argument can be proved false as Juggle has shown an interest in improving the BI (because of good ol' Koopin). My opponents plan is flawed, since if people began to left the BI blank (in protest of the defects), Juggle will assume that members have lost an interest. In the end, showing support of the BI encourages Juggle to improve and update it.==Conclusion==All in all, the BI ultimately results in better, more productive debates rather than useless debates. Not filling out the BI will only harm the user.Sources[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...