Debate.org is an extremly flawed site

"I agree that the profile setup and the inability to have more than two people speak in one debate isn't as great as it could be." So you have conceded points one and two of my argument "However, this does not make Debate.org flawed." This is contrary to your first statement "From the general standpoint, the site is the first of its kind - an organized database for people to argue topics of interest. Topics that are important and that the public care about will get more attention and more feedback" This is not a counterpoint of any kind. Just because something is first, doesn't mean it isn't flawed. In fact most first time things are flawed. See the comparison between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of The United States as an example. " - this is a good thing. " This is an opinion and not a valid argument. "Do not candidates debate in the same manner? The general public decides what is the important issues." Yes candidates do the same thing. Does any good really come out of it? Are any issues really decided? Not really. It is more of a dog and pony show to parade the candidates around. For example, during the Nixon Kennedy debate, Nixon was sweating. It was because of what he looked like and not what he said that attributed to his losing the presidential election. "Now specifically your attack on the voting system. The voting system does not grant a winner based on what is more popular or who agrees most with a certain position. The people on this site want others to vote for them based on their debating skills and their arguments, so they do the same." In what world would someone invite people to vote if they think voters would vote against them? "Look at most of the completed arguments on this website. The vote mostly isn't for the person who has been a member of Debate.org for the longest time, or the most popular. The vote goes to who argues the best, the one who is able to argue the best course of action or best able to support his opinion" That is irrelevant. I said they will vote on which idea is the most popular not the person. However I should clarify. The person becomes popular because they uphold the popular point. For example look at the correlation between congressional stagnation, and voting records of congressmen. "...The singular logical purpose of debate - the search for the best arguments, not the best opinions" I Agree. "In conclusion, some of your indicts are not strong enough to claim Debate.org as an "EXTREMELY FLAWED SITE." Even if everything you said was true, none of it is ground enough for one to deem Debate.org as illegitimate or extremely flawed." A flaw can be defined as any attribute that is contrary to the designated operation, or desired condition of an object. Therefore noting a flaw is presenting a fact. Furthermore I never said Debate.org was illegitimate, but I did note flaws, some of which you agreed to. In conclusion, I am most likely going to lose this debate, even though I struck down your points. I would say the reason is that most people, who use this site, like it and do not want it to be attacked. This in essence proves my point about popularity.