Resolved: Debate.org should not enable graphical emoticons

From quick observation of my opponent's case, I cannot help but notice that his case is based around the harm GE's can bring to the debates here, thus, if you do not buy my refutations of his case, then I shall agree that GE's should not be placed in debates, however, this says nothing about them being placed in comment sections, private messages, walls, forums, etc. The primary purpose of none of these other places is to debate, thus, his arguments don't apply to them, thus, a clear CON vote regardless of how this debate turns out. Re: Disadvantage I-- Disrespect Re A: This rest on a false assumption; this rest on the idea that sarcasm is only a means to disrespect one's opponent. However, this is obviously not true. For instance, let us say that Debater A and Debater B are in a debate concerning global warming and Debater B (who is defending the idea that we should act towards slowing down global warming) decides to suggest that the US has greatly done it's part in reducing global warming in spite of the fact that it hasn't. Now, although this is an example of sarcasm, there is no point where it is being used as a personal attack against the opposition. Ergo, PRO insinuations concerning sarcasm are clearly false. Furthermore, I can't put it any better than this article has: http://en.wikipedia.org... "Sarcasm is most often used as an intelligent form of humor to satirically and paradoxilly portray the minutinae and uselessness in some aspects of everyday life." If anything, it encourages intelligence. Lastly, I cannot help but notice that PRO is encouraging a system which encourages the style over substance fallacy. Let us not judge based on the style which arguments are made, but rather their actual substance as that is how we progress towards the truth. To judge on style is foolish and completely contrary to the purpose of determining a winner to the actual debate. b) I've already covered how sarcasm does not equal disrespect or rather any form of ad hominem. So now, I shall simply provide a means of solving PRO's problem while maintaining GEs. PRO doesn't like disrespect, thus, rather than disallow GEs, I motion that disrespecting opponents during debates (which, incidentally, already takes place here even without GEs. If PRO wants examples, I'll be more than happy to provide) be deterred. If a debater disrespects his/her opponent during a debate, the debater in question should be investigated and then giving a posting quota (in other words, the debater in question would have to wait a certain amount of time to post any comment. This could also apply to debates as well as posting on this website's forum which is said to be out by next week). RE: Disadvantage II-- Loss of Needed Intellect a) Interesting tactic here. Above, PRO notes that a debater should not aim to disrespect their opponents, yet here, he goes on to point out that a debater should supply plenty of arguments for the purpose of showing their opponent's lack of intellect. Contradiction? I think so. :D But at any rate, the goal of the debate is to persuade, not to boast one's own ego through showing how one's opponent lacks intellect because this one has posted twenty arguments. Though personally, I must ask why a debater couldn't simply offer twenty points AND make good use of non verbal communication via emoticon? Unless of course, does my opponent intend to claim that emoticons have no effect? I would like to know the answer to this question before I proceed. RE RE Contention 1 (my contention): Since I've already rebutted "disadvantage II", I'll just move on this false dichotomy which concerns books. He ask me if books need GEs. In response, I ask him if books are incapable of mis-communication. If they are, I will gladly concede to his stance. Since the point of my argument was that GEs would help deter mis-communication, I find such a question rather relevant. Furthermore, by PRO's logic, the idea of emoticons should have never been concocted in the first place and yet here they are being used on nearly every online forum. I absolutely agree that one can communicate and establish points via text. All I'm saying is that the addition of non-verbal communication here would benefit and provide less instances of "mis-communication." RE RE Contention 2 (my contention) Not at all. Note that I was referring to the "absurdity of one's idea." Attacking/disrespecting one's argument/idea is far different than attacking an individual. And since when is one obligated to respect someone else's argument? Why should I respect an argument such as: 1) Aliens exist on mars. 2) Batman is cool. 3) Therefore, Global warming doesn't exist. Or how about: 1) Gays have acid in for blood. 2) Jews are evil. 3) Therefore, Adolf Hitler is awesome. I challenge my opponent to prove how either of these arguments DESERVE respect. In addition, how I am obligated to respect every argument? With this clarification, I shall proceed further on this matter in the next round. Oh, but any rate, I've already dismantled PRO's "disadvantage" argument in every other way. RE: Conclusion: Well, I've already pointed out how you are to vote CON regardless (GEs wouldn't just apply to debates here). PRO has provided no compelling reason as to why one should be obligated to respect someone else's argument and I've pointed out that you can maintain what PRO believes as being the "intelligent" aspect of debate AND use GEs in order to decrease the chance of mis-communication. Thus, the victor of this debate is already apparent. And that'll do it for now.