DDO Win/Loss Record is Detrimental

I accept. Since he started arguing in the first round, I'll follow suit. The resolution is talking about having a publicly viewable win/loss record and how it affects the site overall. If I show that the site overall isn't harmed by having a publicly viewable win/loss record, then you negate the resolution. Moreover, the burden of proof for this debate is on the Pro debater because: a) he's making the positive claim, therefore requires proof of said claim. b) negate is defined as to deny the truth of something. Therefore it's simply my job as the negative debater to refute what pro is saying, placing the burden of proof on him. My sole contention before I move to refute my opponent's arguments is that the site overall is not harmed by having a public win/loss record. This is simply because there's more to this site than just the debating aspect of it. Having a public win/loss record for your debates has absolutely zero impact on the Opinons section, the Polls section, and the Forums section of the site. This means literally at least 3/4ths of the site is unaffected by having a public win/loss record, meaning it cannot be overall detrimental to the site. Now to respond to my opponent's claims.He says: "some participants will accept a debate challenge because they spot a technicality in the wording of the instigator, and then exploit that"First, turn this argument. Exploitation of resolutional flaws is a positive force on the site because it forces debaters to grow and become better. Not wanting to get resolution sniped forces debaters to learn how to craft better resolutions, which allows for better debate to occur. Second, there's no impact for this. One debate getting sniped isn't actually the end of the world; just make a new debate. He says: " this will discourage such participants from accepting a debate because they don't want to risk losing,"First, turn this argument: better selection fo what debates people accept encourages people to critically examine their own positions on issues. If they don't consider their position to be potent enough to debate about it on a random online debating site with no impact on actual life outside of the internet, it could lead to them reconsidering their stance on the issue. This leads to the same understanding or testing of position that my opponent says isn't there.Second, turn this argument: better selective debate choice encourages strategic thinking in debates. Knowing what you're strong at arguing and what you're not strong at arguing leads to you better understanding your strengths and weaknesses as a debater, which improves your overall debating performance. More people doing this means better debaters on the site, leading to higher quality debates overall.Third, turn this argument: having a public win/loss record encourages people who are scared of losing to try harder in their debates to avoid losing the debate, leading to higher quality debates as a result of the added effort, which is a benefit to the site. Fourth, there's literally zero warrant for this argument in the first place. He just says that this is something he "notices" but doesn't actually provide any proof of it. Fifth, the impact of this, if there is one, is negligable at best. It's not like quality debates are just going to stop because people are scared of getting a loss. So to conclude, there's no reason to believe it has a overall negative effect on the site, and can actually be really productive in certain cases.