There should be no restrictions on opponents (with respect to ranking) on debate.org

Throughout the arguments in the previous round, Pro did little more than demanding for proof. Demand for proof, is indeed a scientific way of proceeding in a discussion, but it has been over-done. For instance, Why do I have to publish proof that a forum is for knowledge sharing and not a place for "advancing for or against a proposition" (definition of debate)? Should I cite meanings of commonly accepted words and their meanings too via sources that link to dictionaries? But since it has been asked: It is not my opinion that forums are for knowledge sharing but the very meaning of the word. I would like to question Pro to come up with a forum link where debates are on about a topic? No user of a forum takes a for or against stand on anything. It is only about what they know and how they share it with the forum. It is unfortunate that I have to explain things so rudimentary in nature. Another thing one would expect every debater to know and understand is that when you are entering a debate, you are certainly putting self-esteem at stake. I enter a debate, knowing only very well, that one way or another my self-esteem will be hurt, whatever the outcome. It is true that one would not know how articulate a newbie is. But then, one would never know that unless the newbie is given a chance. This, denying a chance to someone on non-topical reasons, is at the core of this debate. What right does an instigator have to denying an opportunity to anyone? The whole ranking system does not make sense in the context of debate. Just imagine, if common people would never be allowed to debate with or ask questions to our leaders/politicians because of they are high in ranking or order! What would be the state of a country? Anarchy would prevail. I would have, in the first place, not created this debate if I found enough debates to challenge. At any point in time I could find no more than 10-15 debates that were in challenge period. You can try it out yourself and truthfully state what you find. Among those 10-15 odd debates there are debates that set prerequisites and conditions that can hardly be met by newcomers. On an average, I have always found not more than 6 debates that could be challenged. Are you trying to tell me that DDO is not a site for newbies as there are criteria to be met for a debate? How will a newbie ever get better opportunities to engage in conversations that are helpful for development of his/her own thought process? After all, this is the purpose of debating and DDO. So it is not about eleven thousand odd debaters who can debate. It is about those some handful of newcomers who can debate. In the real world I cannot debate with the President of United States or the President of IMF, but here in the online world, I would want to. That's the opportunity that I am speaking of. By setting restrictions, that very specialty of this online world of debating is getting killed. If you really want to have a ranking system then, when an expert wins a debate with newcomer he/she can take the same debate to the next level of expertise instead of stamping entry restrictions on the very first proposal. Why do you need any other source ? I am a newcomer and so far it is my experience that I find the site very frustrating as there so less number of debates to challenge. I would like to ask why my experience/feedback, and not opinion, is not a credible source in itself? It is a fact that I have found very less debates to challenge and I am searching for them at least 10 times a day. Please avoid confusing yourself. It is not good for a debater. Finally about the underdogs bashing the superior teams, here are some sources: http://greatist.com... http://espn.go.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...(term)#Sports Sports is only one field; this phenomenon is highly prevalent (Check out the wikipedia link above for more). It is unfortunate that demand for proof, even for glaringly obvious things, has become a fad. Summarily, in an environment that encouraged open discussion and putting forth of arguments to understand each other's point of views, imposing restrictions on involving in a discussion reduces the likeness of a productive discussion. Instigators with such a provision have a undue advantage of having a secure place and depend on their past performances instead of their current skill. Thus far, there has been no strong and compelling evidence or reasoning put forth by the contender to dismantle this established fact and so my assertion, and the arguments backing them, stand affirmed.