People on debate.org need to get their resolutions/arguments straight.

Hey Beem0r! Nice debating with you in the last round. Hopefully the same this time. Answers- 1. "my opponent has completely failed to mention any reason for this. as far as I'm concerned, a naked assertion is not a valid argument. " I sure did say why that is bad: Confusion. And entering debates you don't want to be in. This can't be argued, I clearly said 'confusion' in my first speech. Another thing is annoyance. I personally get annoyed with these topics because I have to think about them for a little while, before I even understand it. Another (new) impact is grammar. Language has power. What world would we live in where anyone could say anything and make sense of it later? Couldn't they just say what they believed in right there? We don't take English classes from 1st to 12th grade for no reason. 2. "it is the duty of the "Contender" to fully understand what position their acceptance of a challenge places them in." That is true, but my point was that people pass it up, don't read the question over 10 times, and end up misinterpreting this. Beem0rs argument is pretty much that they shouldn't make mistakes. But the fact is, When the words 'Uncostitiutional' and 'taxes' are mentioned in the same sentence, most people think of one thing (the wrong thing). What Beem0rs argument on advocacy is not reasonable because everyone makes mistakes. You can't expect every person to read over the resolution 15 times, because if you accepted the challenge, you obviously THOUGHT you knew what the resolution said. (sorry that was kinda run-on.) 3. "While they're surely not unconstitutional, many people would not see them as 'constitutional' either, since they have nothing to do with the constitution. Therefore, "Teddy bears are not unconstitutional" would have very different implications than "Teddy bears are constitutional." Teddy Bears are not income tax. There are big debates about income tax being unconstitutional or, the opposite, constitutional. The constution doesn't talk about teddy bears, but it does talk about taxes. Also, the 'very different implications' are not that different. Unconstitutional is the opposite of constitutional. If you said they were Un... then the other person in the debate would say they were constitional. Sure, if you brought out of nowhere in everyday consveration that Teddy Bears are constitutional, then they would agree, but in a debate where the two sides are of complete opposense (is that a word), there would not be different implications. 4. "I think you and hopefully all of us here are smart enough to figure out what a double negative means. Also, in some cases, it completely changes the meaning of the debate. Take, for instance, the recent debate between my opponent and myself: "PS3 is a bad system to own." While this may be a good argument, I don't get how this argument applies to my case. My argument was on double-negatives. 'PS3 is a bad system to own' is certainly not a double negative. Also, if you are just saying 'words in the resolution shape the debate', I agree. Language in a debate does have power, I agree, that is the basis of my pro side. You say, "IT completly changes the debate". If you mean using 'not', I did not use that in PS3, so the analogy can't apply to the argument. OFFENSE- 1. creating topics with grammatical errors, such as double-negatives are just stupid. They are confusing- as per not unconstitutional, many debaters lose debates because they didn't know what they are getting into, and people simply viewing the debate have to think about the topic for a while. annoying- as I'm sure most of you agree, I get annoyed because I have to think about it. I find myself asking, Why don't you just make it clear WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT. And, Grammar- Debate is combat, fought with words, not fists. Debate is one of the only places where we can use our rhetoric skills while also serving a greater cause. When we start to break away to poor grammar, the essence of debate is taken away, right from our hands. 2. Also I'd like to bring up a new argument. In one debate, a debate said the resoulution "Freedom of Speech". While that is not even a real topic, you would think the con is against freedom of speech. But no, the argument was that freedom of speech should not allowed for groups like the KKK, but for the general public. Topics like this also link to my 3 impacts, because they don't even say what the pro or con should actually beileve in. Take a challenge I recieved. "To help or not to help: Nietzsche and stuff." I had to send back a debate with a clear resolution. If it were an open challenge that I did not know about, I would have to read the WHOLE THING before I decided if I wanted to debate this. If it were 'We can help others by not helping at all', It would provide clear ground for what the pro is saying and what I should say. Confusing Resolutions should be curtailed on debate.org. I mean really, c'mon.