RyuuKyuzo should be allowed in the DDO Debating League

The debate shall be quite simply. Firstly, I want to reiterate that the characteristics I set out for the league was what my opponent said, in as many words:1) An easy way to create good debates against good members2) A way to make them easily accessible3) A way to rank yourself against the other top members of the site in an accurate way.The requirement I set up was one with the intention to "create[s] a database of great debates between great debaters", to counter the problem of the current leaderboard: "The current leaderboard system is such that if you're a noob sniper you get a massive lead above anyone else who may do less but better debates" and create a judging clique where we can reasonably and dispassionately read good debates and judge them on their merits. I shall proceed to point out how my opponent does not meet the requirements stemming from the aim of the league, as well as how not meeting the requirement is of no severe consequence.Poor debates make poor debatingI am a rebuttal debater. By that I mean that I debate as the second speaker in debates. For those unfamiliar in debating formats, usually there is an opening speaker and a rebuttal speaker. I am one of the latter. Rebutting on the fly, thinking on the spot, creating pathos as well as logos. These are all the things that make a good debater, in my eyes. Creating a speech without reference to your opponent is not a difficult feat: it's the on-the-spot nature that is important. As such, I always feel that debates where someone forfeits against me or writes barely anything is a real shame, because it means my quality of debate has to go down. How can I respond well to an argument which is:"1.There is one evidence in the early 1990s, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) concluded that being in single-sex classes could rise a girl's self-esteem. Also in a later report, that same organization said girls performed better without boys in the classroom.In addition, many critics claim that all-female schools may actually be detrimental to a girl's education because they "reinforce regressive notions of sex differences".2.Harvard researcher Carol Gilligan has done important work on adolescent girls. She's let people see how different they are from boys their age-their learning styles, their value system, the cultural messages they observe."[1]?Similarly, my opponent cannot be expected to respond well either. Unfortunately, this is similar with the vast majority of his debates. Many of them seem to be "noob-sniping" debates (intentional or no) against lesser members on the site. This has led to the vast majority of the debates he has participated in to be forfeits[2]. Even in the better debates he cites, forfeits are apparent[3]. With this in mind, it seems particularly foolish to allow someone to enter what is desired to be "great debates". Thus, my opponent does not match this level yet. If my opponent had competed in stronger debates, then he would more likely be classed as a great debater. Unfortunately, he has not.Poor debate resolutions create poor debatesSecondly, my opponent's debates themselves are not contentious. Firstly, take a look at my personal favourite debater on the site: bluesteel. His most recent debate is one of the exemplar resolutions: "The United States should subsidize college students with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) majors". It holds three characteristics:1) It is very contentious2) It can be argued in more than one form as CON (either no subsidies, or 100% funding)3) It has scholarly merit on both sidesThough the second one is usually not important, the first and third are vital to any debate topic. By comparison, this is the current resolution title of my opponent's open challenge:"Ancient Astronaut Theory is Bunk"This is the title of my opponent's best debate (in my eyes):"Everyone who has the ability to adopt a vegan diet should do so"And this is the title of my opponent's idea of one of his best debates:"Should we implement a eugenics program"Also, the example of evidence for allowing him to join the league, my opponent put:"topic of race and IQ"Each time, my opponent took the non-controversial, uncontested position. These are not heavily debated. In fact, they are hardly debatable. Even in the vegan debate, his opponent could not manage to link his argument back to the resolution. As such, I contend further my opponent has not competed in great debates. Poor opponents make poor debatesFinally, I contend my opponent has not competed in debates against great debaters. To seperate this from the first argument, I contend here that my opponent has not gone up against a great debater on an issue as of yet. To put it simply, my opponent has done many debates, but none of them against great debaters. I haven't seen my opponent debate someone in the 90th percentile, yet alone a 'great debater'. This isn't difficult: set up a challenge with a restriction to ten or more wins, or twenty+ wins, on a contentious issue, and one will come along and take the challenge. However, my opponent has not as of yet done so (excluding this debate). Also, look at the examples of people he has challenged to debates but declined: LeafRod, with only two debates ever done, one a rap and the other a haiku debate. These are not examples of good debates, but bad ones. As such, it is unreasonable to grant him an addition to the league in question."More bullets in the Chamber"I am always hasty with such a statement. It reminds me of Hitler's book 100 Authors against Einstein, about their faults in Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's response was wittily accurate:"If I were wrong, one would be enough!"As such, I wonder what my opponent here means by saying he has many arguments left. Does he mean he saved his 'best 'til last?' If so, then what was the point of presenting weaker arguments? Or are they the weaker arguments in reserve? If so, why would they more likely convince me than these better ones? It never seems like a good technique in my eyes.ConclusionTo make this clear, not joining the league does not exclude my opponent from anything: it just allows good debaters to register their wins against good debaters clearly (and gloat over a glass of scotch sitting in the luxurious armchair of the secret DDO lounge in front of a roaring fire, waiting for Jeeves to bring back the plans for world domination not plot to conquer the world). It is for the better debaters to register themselves and debate other great members and get better judging for their best debates. Not for noob sniping debates like the ones my opponent (and I) have done in the past. This does not exclude my opponent from challenging skilled debaters: just as I have accepted this debate, he can challenge other debaters. Some like myself or royalpaladin accept challenges emerging from forums repeatedly, while others (000ike for instance) do not. However, my opponent is at no larger a disadvantage than anyone else on the issue. I do not think, and I imagine voters will feel the same, that you are incapacitated in some regard to debating better opponents. Finally, this is not me telling my opponent he is a bad debater. For what it is worth, I feel he will become a great debater in the future. However, he simply is not now. With that, I want to thank my opponent and wait for my opponent's next round.1 - http://debate.org...;2 - http://debate.org...3 - http://debate.org...4 - http://debate.org...