Debate.org's "coming soon" additions will be a good thing.

Granted, at writing, I haven't been a member even twenty-four hours, however, my stance on the issue is easy enough to state, given the arguments that have been provided. I do not think this site has the sort-of propensity that MySpace had for turning into a mass social networking site. At the time of creation, sites to connect members throughout specific communities, be it based on location, interests, etc. Were not widely-used, sites like Xanga or the Yahoo Groupings, had their populations, but they did not and still do not have the same functions as a website like MySpace or Facebook. Moreover, there is not a need for branching out to sites like Debate.org when most if not all of everyone you know is using MySpace or Facebook. Furthermore, there still exists a major discrepancy in the behavior of those that use MS/FB often as opposed to those that are registered here. There, an indeed notorious lack of proper grammar, spelling and even etiquette is observed. Here? The antithesis. First, you assert that the status of opponent ought to be maintained, this thought while having seemingly logical foundations, is flawed. As a member of debate in high school, I am, of course, friends with those on our squad, particularly those that I frequently debate with in class, for our debating of policy. Outside of my school, I am friendly with most other CX debaters. We are friends, yet equally so we still have excellent rounds. Friendship is not a determining factor. As for your friends/groups issue, this comes from the idea of it is always necessary to win a debate. I have found that when getting into arguments, in the round or outside of it, and I lose said argument, I learn far more (unless it was an illegitimate loss) than had I won. Placing winning as a priority is both terrible for debate and for education, for it encourages exploiting whichever means necessary to win. Consider also what has not been mentioned until now-In that users of this site already have the ability to invite friends to vote, if we were going to see unfair voting, we would have already, as of now, it simply won't occur. As for messaging be used for "conspiracies"? What do you mean? You don't tell us why this is bad. Next you posit that forums take away from debate and/or discussion, however, this is not true. The level of responsibility of the individuals on this site, in that we are, for the most part, punctual in the time allotted for responses, and given the large amount of time that often occurs between posts, it may let this site be even more enjoyable than it is now. As for your "we're here to argue" no, as addressed before, the purpose of debate should be, first and foremost, education. And a discussion is a much better way to become educated on an issue than a debate. I'm not sure on blogs. At one end, I dislike the idea of blogs, but as a whole, I don't see any specific reasons to oppose a blog. As said numerous times within my statement, we are a more responsible more intelligent group than a high percentage of those that use blogs. Besides, they are some issues that can't be argued upon, or not argued well, like philosophy. An in-profile blog could allow thoughts on philosophy or otherwise. Finally, your argument that polls will "turn ugly fast" while also seemingly grounded in logic, misses the boat. I don't see harm from collective interest polls. Books, video games, movies. We all have different interests, and this can allow us to learn more about each other, have a friendlier environment. These additions will help this website, encourage growth, users being friendly with each other, and ultimately better Debate.org.