Debate.org is an extremly flawed site

Ok, he quotes my first point that I agree that the profile system isn't perfect - then he just says that I conceede his entire argument? Did he read the rest of what I wrote? I said that his first two points are irrelevant because the topic statement is: "Debate.org is an extremely flawed site." As I said before, just because the profile setup could be better and there is not yet a method for there to be more than 1 on 1 debates doesn't mean that the site is flawed. I did not "conceede his first two points" - I said that they were irrelevant, because even if they were true, it doesn't make Debate.org flawed. I don't understand how that is contradictory at all. Whatever; It's not. He quotes me out of context. Hold my opponent to a higher standard of argumentation - hold him to actually answer my arguments rather that just dismiss them because he incorrectly thinks I conceeded them. More simply put: He must answer the "points 1 and 2 are irrelevant" argument that I made above and in Round One. Next, he says my argument that the site is the first of its kind is irrelevant because it is "not a counterpoint." However, this is where the topic breaks down. The site is the first and only of its kind and it already has many, many users. (Considering the site's purpose is educational.) This means, there is no previous or following example to compare it to. The site cannot be deemed "flawed," specifically "EXTREMELY flawed," because there is no site similar which is "not flawed." Furthermore, his Articles of Confederation example is bogus. Sure, the Articles were terrible, it had problems. The example is bad because: 1. The Articles were not the first of its kind. Other countries had laws. 2. Even if it is true that the Articles had problems - the idea of the Articles was not flawed. The idea behind the Articles was improved upon in order to come up with the best version so far - the Constitution. This is similar to Debate.org. Even if it is true that there are problems with distinct parts of Debate.org, the idea of it is not flawed, and definately not "EXTREMELY flawed." Debate.org can consistently be improved upon by its makers and maybe someday a better version will be released. Next, he again takes a quote out of context and renders it "not a valid argument." He says "-this is a good thing" is not a valid argument. Duh, taken out of context, of course. The rest of this quote self-explains my point, and because he doesn't answer it, I shouldn't bore you by explaining it again: "Topics that are important and that the public care about will get more attention and more feedback - this is a good thing." (Meaning, it is good that important topics get more feedback and attention.) Next, he attacks my comparison to how debates operate in a political setting: "Are any issues really decided? Not really." This is not relevant because of course issues are not decided, people are not going to agree that Gay Marriage, for example, should be legal/illegal just because someone debated it well. Opinions will always stand regardless of conclusion. Debate is not meant to conclude, it is meant to persuade through argumentation. Logically, the votes on Debate.org should reflect who DEBATED better, not who they agree with, or who decided an issue. And yes, Nixon was sweating and it hurt his appearance. That's a different issue. People are naturually going to hold presidential candidates to a high standard of public speaking. Sweating probably hurt him in that category. Next, the "voting" debate... "In what world would someone invite people to vote if they think voters would vote against them?" We don't gain prizes for winning these debates, we all know that. What do we gain for winning? We gain the knowledge that our arguments were more persuasive to the audience than the other person's. Also, even if someone messed up the voting by inviting friends - that shouldn't matter. If it was a good debate, there will still be feedback from people who vote correctly - based on who DEBATED the best, which is what we want when posting debates on here, that is how we learn. And, because that can still happen even if someone messes up the voting, Debate.org isn't the thing that is flawed - it's the people thinking they gain something from false votes. Next, "That is irrelevant. I said they will vote on which idea is the most popular not the person." He again doesn't answer my argument - just because he said something contrary to what I said doesn't mean my argument is irrelevant. He said they will vote on which idea is the most popular, I'm saying NO, they won't. Look at the posts in the comment section - another member has provided examples of people voting due to who debates better, not which issue is most popular. These are the same people that give feedback, and this is how we learn. Cross-apply my previous argument about the voting: if this learning/education occurs, voting doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if he provides examples that people "inflate" their votes by inviting friends or voting for the more popular position, etc. As long as we have examples of people who vote based on who DEBATED better, the goal has been met. Two-sided argumentative education is the goal, as long as that happens, Debate.org is not flawed. On the nature of flaws... A flaw is a detail about something that causes that specific something to not reach its desired goal. A flaw in logic will cause you to not be able to reach your conclusion from a premise. A flaw in an argument will cause you to lose a debate. When he says Debate.org is "flawed," specifically, "extremely flawed," he is saying that there is something holding the site back from reaching its goal, which we have already established is the logical purpose of debate, the search for the best argumentation, which he agreed with. Saying something did not meet its desired goal is dismissing it as illegitimate. I agreed with the problems of the site that were isolated, yes. However, I contend that these are not "flaws" that prevent the site from reaching its goal, and I contend that these "flaws," (which I call problems), are not "extreme." "I am most likely going to lose this debate, even though I struck down your points." First, I ask you to not take this pessimistic standpoint; rather, debate this out with me whole-heartedly. We will both learn more about debate in general, as this is an extremely good topic. That way we will accomplish the purpose of this site and debate in general. Striking down points, as you have agreed with, is not what determines what is the best argumentation in a debate. Anyone can "strike down arguments." However, these arguments should be good, logical, responsive, and convincing. Good argumentation is what is "popular", (not the certain issue), and should be, as it is what should determine the winner of a debate.