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

I apologise for my late response ;) 5 hours left FTW!==Burden of Proof==I noticed how my opponent tried to push onto me to burden that I have to prove that the BI will provide more benefits than other features.This is largely false - no where in the resolution does it imply that the BI have to have some sort of superiority. As I defined in the first round, beneficial means to do more good than harm. Other feature have no impact on the success of the BI. My burden only forces me to show that the BI, alone, is good. Any other argument concerning other features isn't relevent.==My arguments==Finding Friends and RivalsMy opponent's talk about open challenges is irrelevent to the resolution. Filling out the BI and putting up an open challenge are not mutually exclusive, unless if he can show that the average member must choose between one and another. In any other case, open challenges have no real meaning in this debate concerning the benefits of the BI. In short, why can't you just fill out your BI and put up an open challenge?There's also the fact that most people have key issues that they like to debate (i.e. 16kadams and gun rights) and tend to put up more challenges of that sort. The main disadvantage of taking action yourself is that people tend to forget about issues that they do not bother much with. For example, I'm not much of a debater on issues like abortion. Hence, I will probably never put up a challenge relating to abortion.This harms me since I will never gain the opportunity to debate abortion, leaving my opinion subject to only what I believe. The BI allow other people to attempt to argue/convince you on issues that you would otherwise ignore, creating a beneficial learning experiance.Also, I agree that the BI alone shouldn't be used as a way to judge and find new friends/rivals, but rather it improves the general method of finding friends. In a more broad sense, people you argue less with seem more friendly. The ability to relate to each other in beliefs increases the chances of becoming friends. Furthermore, I didn't mean to create the sense that rivals means enemies. What I was trying to say was that the BI allows you to find debaters who you can argue against, if you wish.My opponent brings up the point that people can lie. This doesn't amount to anything, since debates will still occur. Also, I don't see the chances of a person lying on the BI to play DA. Wouldn't a challenge be a much more obvious answer? Increasing ActivityOnce again, big issues + open challenges = best efficiency. In the end, the BI can only promote productivity. My opponent's argument about open challenges doesn't matter in this debate.My opponent also misunderstands my argument. I wrote that choosing not to fill out your BI may discourage people from messaging you on your views.I have received messages because of the BI on issues. Without the BI, those messages may have never occured.This argument isn't really referring to debates but rather constructive conversations. Furthermore, my opponent claims that people waste time on the big issues, and this detracts from important discussions. This is just not realistic. The big issues shouldn't take more than 5 minutes to fill out, unless if you are really unstable on your views. The amount of time you spend on the BI shouldn't be much of an issue.==My opponent's arguments==The BI limits the range of debatesScanning people's profiles to find debatesr isn't neccessarly what people do to find other debaters. The giant list of the big issues also show which debaters support a certain issue [1]. Say I wanted to debate internet censorship. I could click on the link to the issue "Internet Censorship" and look at the list of either Pro or Con debaters.That's a pretty efficient way of finding debaters who disagree with you on your own personal key issues.My opponent also explains how "true debaters should be able to debate on both sides". I'm okay with that, but nothing will solve this issue. Ultimately, it comes down to the debater's choice on whether or not he wants to debate with one side. The argument that my opponent next tries to push actually does not make much sense to me =/ (no offense). I simply don't see how my opponent came to conclusion that if you are using the BI as a method of finding friends/debaters, then you won't do DA debates.Because accepting debates come down to the choices of the debater, they can accept or decline DA debates regardless of their BI.I don't see how these two have any relationship. BI doesn't lead to constructive debates*Answer to Con: Lol, I was going to see that thread eventually. :PGenerally, I noticed that my opponent is making the mistake that these few bad debate issues are causing the debate armageddon. Just like to point that out...I don't really see why a debate has to be "useful" in the real world for it to matter. I can debate about video games, if I wanted. I can debate about who came to America first, if I wanted. Heck, I can debate on anything I wish. A debate doesn't have to have any real world impact. To be honest, I don't see why my opponent's arguments matter at all.Also, George Bush isn't really much of an issue, although some people might still want to debate about him. My opponent claims that the world can be "extremely different from the time of George Bush" - it's only been a couple years. It doesn't seem to me like the Republicans have made any real, significant or drastic switch. This argument is also no longer relevent, since GWB isn't part of the BI anymore.Animal rights -->That's what comments are for. Specification on the issue.Torture -->Comments.Although both issues are much more broad. Debate resolutions don't neccessarily have to be that specific to as say "which animal", "which rights", "which parts of the world", etc. Even a broad answer is better than no answer.My argument that choosing to not fill out the BI implies that someone "doesn't care" applies to all debaters, new and old. How am I supposed to know whether a person is here for mafia games or here for debates? Also, a fair amount of new members fill out some of the BI, preferring the more major issues in their minds. My opponent once again argues that the BI is too vague and can result in inaccuracy. This argument is outweighed by the fact that there isn't any real harm to the occasional difference in extremely specific arguments, but there still exists the general benefit that you can find debaters who agree with you in a more broad way. Some benefits + no harm = More harm than goodThe BI are brokenThe presentation issues around the BI are largely fixed. I recently tried typing spaces in my "Comments" box, and it worked perfectly fine. This means that Juggle is both updating and fixing the BI.My opponent also suggests the option of a "protest".This is unrealistic because[1] New members will continue to update[2] Most members will probably not participate (I mean, they have updated it)[3] How will Juggle supposedly differentiate between a protest and general dislike? The obvious solution to the problem in this case would just be removing the BI entirely.Showing support in the BI, coupled with the occasional reminder from good members, seems like a much more viable way to get Juggle to update DDO.==Conclusion==Many of my opponent's arguments do not have any relation to the resolution, such as open challenges or DA debates. DA debates don't have any correlation to the BI, which have shown promise in possible future developments. Sources:[1] http://www.debate.org...