Debate topics on this website (debate.org) should be critiqued

Thanks for the rapid response RougeFox. *'s will denote an argument my opponent made ==Resolutional analysis== *the community should comment on whether or not the resolution could be worded better, had serious errors, ect* Yet, my opponent originally said, "Critique- in this case, it means that members of this website should evaluate the quality of some resolutions." I'm sorry I accepted given that my opponent and I clearly thought the resolution was about different things. But my interpretation of the debate falls well within my opponent's original statement, which was that members will in some way evaluate the quality of debate resolutions. This sounds exactly like what studentathletechristian8 tried to do with his "Board of Debate Approval" (BDA): certify the quality of debates. His system was still voluntary, but it would have, in theory, tried to shame people out of starting silly, stupid, bad, or unapproved debates. I accepted this debate based on the original statement in round 1; my opponent should not be allowed to clarify and change the debate in round two. His clarification is also confusing because it already happens now. Members of debate.org (DDO) can already offer criticism of topics under the comments section. I assumed my opponent was advocating a change from the status quo, since otherwise his topic is not very relevant. I thus believe my interpretation of the debate should stand. *If my opponent does not want to debate based on this idea, then this debate should be a tie.* I disagree. I still want to debate – I think resolutional analysis is a fair thing to debate, which opens the debate up to my interpretation. I'll also address my opponent's arguments and try to win within his framework as well. But, I don't think anyone should award a tie in this debate: vote for the debater who made better arguments. ==My opponent's case== *Observation* Sure, I agree. Effective communication is important in a debate round. It's unfortunate that we've already had one failure to communicate in this debate. *if debate topics are critiqued, then the quality of debate topics will improve. This will happen because people will learn how to word topics more effectively and clearly. This has several impacts which can effect many different purposes of debate.* 1. There is already a spelling/grammar check on everyone's computer. This should be sufficient to make sure topics are worded clearly. 2. As this debate proves, topics cannot be perfectly worded no matter what. There will always be some vagueness inherent in the topic. In fact, for competitive debate topics, the framers of resolutions purposely choose vague wording and leave the topic open to interpretation to allow resolutional analysis and debates over definitions to occur. These types of debates can be even more educational than having someone tell you in the comments section how to re-word the resolution to preclude debate. 3. Following from 2, the only way to clearly explain what a debate is going to be about is to have a very clear and well-explained opening case. Most of the confusion from this debate comes from vagueness in my opponent's opening statement, not in the wording of the topic itself. Critiques of opening cases are impractical because this would be construed as the members of DDO helping the instigator with his argument, but not helping the contender. 4. A topic is one sentence long. If you can't write one clear sentence without outside assistance, there's not much hope for you in a debate anyway. 5. Signaling. Badly worded topics are signals to good DDO members that the instigator is not very good, and it helps them avoid the debate, while instead allowing the instigator to be matched to someone closer to his or her skill level. Having DDO members correct topic wording removes this vital signal. *Education* 1. Extend my analysis about how debates about resolutional analysis and definitions are more educational than simply having someone tell you how to correct the topic. 2. Extend the signaling argument – debaters learn more from a closer matchup. 3. Critiques stifle learning and innovation. If someone wants to debate that "President Obama was born in Zimbabwe," who am I to tell that person that he is inevitably going to lose. This individual will learn more from debating his doomed topic than my comment can ever teach him. *Fun* 1. My opponent keeps making the faulty assumption that a critique will inevitably make a topic "higher quality." A critique could make a topic lower quality. People on DDO have very differing opinions and some members are more intelligent than others. If someone new takes the wrong advice, he or she might actually lower the quality of the debate. 2. Critiques stifle innovation. Someone might start a fun topic called a "debate rap." But if that person were the first ever to suggest such an idea, if a number of DDO members comment "that's stupid," "this site is for debating, not rapping," etc then the individual might abandon the innovative, fun new debate idea. 3. Users word topics about something they know about, even if their beliefs are simplistic or faulty. If I comment and make the debate "higher quality," but in doing so, shift it to something that is too difficult for the user to argue, he will not enjoy the experience. *Challenge, winning, recognition* Same answers to all of these, from above. ==Burden of proof== My opponent agrees to my burden of proof (BOP) by dropping this argument. He must prove that 50% (plus one) topics on this site are worded badly enough to demand DDO member intervention. ==My case== C1) Conflicting critiques If two members give completely conflicting critiques, the instigator will not know what to do. This could get really confusing for new users. C2) Jokes Many members on DDO take everything as a joke. If new users take their critiques seriously, they will end up arguing ridiculous positions. This would destroy the value and quality of debates. C3) Postpones debates Debates often exceed 100 posts in the comments sections, with different DDO members debating each other about different aspects of a topic. If the critiques are meant to precede the debate, we would get caught in an infinite cycle of never-ending critique, with topic tweak after topic tweak. The debates will take far too long to actually begin. It is better to have more debates than more critiques. Debates themselves are far more educational than reading through 100 different comments. C4) Pointless Debates cannot be edited after someone accepts. If people post critiques and the instigator doesn't correct the topic before someone accepts, it will be too late. C5) Bait and switch Changing the topic at the last minute is bad. I almost accepted a debate but decided not to for some reason. After refreshing the page, I realized that the user had changed the topic while I was still reading his case. Had I accepted, I would have accepted thinking the resolution was one thing, but it was actually another. This is unfair to the contender. C6) Unconstructive criticism My opponent assumes that all critiques would be constructive. He can't guarantee this. Some critiques might be blatant ridiculing, encouraging new members to leave the site forever. C7) Hurt feelings People who just naturally have bad spelling or grammar might get offended if people constantly critique them. It's possible he or she has a learning disability (like dyslexia) and cannot help it. C8) Destroys the DDO user experience The basic idea of DDO is that you can debate whomever you want, whenever you want, on whatever topic you want. If you vote Pro in this debate, people will get used to the idea that all topics need to be critiqued (since a majority will be). Users will demand de facto approval for all topics. More on this later.