Bad Debaters Should Be Removed from DDO

Con cannot change definitions partway through the debate. End of story. It doesn’t matter if the Website Vice President or Joe Biden himself was debating on the website, rules are rules and should be followed. Bad: As in 'the child is actcing bad'. Bad Debaters: Debaters who generally create or have misconduct and bad behavior. Burden of Proof: Let the voters note that we currently remove bad debaters from the website, meaning I am only defending what is already going on. It is completely up to zaradi the Vice president, to prove we should let those who intend to troll and hurt the website run amuck. Preference of the illegal definition The arguments under this title are irrelevant, this definition is illegal. Just for fun however, I have a couple responses. ‘its what most dictionaries say’ –so what?.....’people in conversations would define it differently’ –proof?/so what? ‘I have poor resolutional word selection’ –And? None of these are arguments in the first place. Allow zaradi to disregard the rules because… You can’t argue your way out of the rules. Nevertheless: a.) “this”? I have no idea what you are saying here b.) ‘Now half of the round’s terms are defined’ So what? you have stated a fact but this means nothing about the round…In any case this is due to negligence, so you take responsibility. c.) ‘its more like real debate’ So what?....Why do were have to adhere to this fabricated standard of “real debate”, your conceptions of “real debate” are flawed, debate happens anywhere there are two people discussion their opposing viewpoints. This is at best an appeal to authority and a bandwagon. d.) I did not, I accepted your challenge and posted my arguments before I looked at your ridiculous forum post. In any case -So what? My intentions are irrelevant to the facts of the debate and the general practices and normative behavior of the website…as far as acceptance practices. e.) Did you read the 1st round? “The reason these definitions are set in stone is because I will have joined the match under false pretenses if the debate means something else. Furthermore I can assume that the instigator wants me to define the terms given that she has refused to do so herself.” f.) Sure, you can argue what you were meant to argue, but you still can’t use the faulty definition. We should keep people who wish to cause trouble on the website\ This is ridiculous… a.) ‘You can be a good academic debater’ you can also be really good at NFL football but if you’re caught breaking the rules and having bad behavior…aka knocking your girlfriend out or looting a store you should be removed. To say that we should keep debaters just because they are good is to completely throw morality out of the equation, just as your point C did. We cannot sacrifice morals for money, burden of proof is on you so if you keep this argument please find some ridiculous author to support this ideology. Let the voters know that zaradi wishes to cast out morality and replace it with money, this is the basis of this argument for keeping bad debaters………….This ‘Reformation Proposal’ isn’t proven as a viable option, zaradi needs to show that his standard for concluding someone is a bad debater is viable, that reformation will produce a positive change more than not, and needs to specify what a valuable member is (this alone is up for kritik). Who said anything about kicking members out ‘From the get go’. Bad debaters are removed despite how long they have been active. b.) Same moral argument from above, in order for this to be an argument you have to argue via credible author that we should exchange money for morality. ...Having to waded through the muck we have arrived at the real argumentation... Kritik on bad ‘quality’ debatersI am running the K from my previous debate solely because zardi requested it in his post on my forum. The reasons we shouldn’t accept that people are poorly skilled at debate: Is a statement of permanence and inescapability, which is bad because it leads to social rejection. there is always a perceived struggle between good and bad. Having such a divide and accepting such a divide undermines the purpose of DDO which is to promote growth in education, learning retention, analytical skills, data collection and other vital functions. It pushes debaters away from the website and is thus unacceptable. Again, this is all another reason to prefer my definition to con's, although mine should be prefered by fault of the broken rules. It discourages people from getting better because it labels them as 'lower than acceptable'. Our goal is to promote growth, just as con says, and thus this course of action is bad. It prevents learning. All of these impacts are reasons to prefer my definition of 'bad', and thus every single outcome accepting 'bad' to mean skill must be rejected.Here is this same perspective but from a psychological point of view. "Throughout my time working as a therapist, I’ve learned how powerful our thoughts are. When we attach negative thoughts to things, we will treat those things worse than if we think positively about them. This is true for ourselves, our husbands, and our kids....We will not have as much patience, we will not be as kind, and the relationship can easily be strained because of it...When we talk like this, we assign them character traits, and it changes our thoughts about them. We put them, as a person, in a negative light." [1] -mental health counsler Why Zaradi cannot bring up a new definition now.When an individual accepts a debate there is a certain standard which must be upheld. So the deal goes that the instigator will provided the topic of debate and for the contender, having spotted the debate can agree that they want to do this debate. Yet if a debate is not defined then what's up for debate relies on intuition, yet intuition varies widely, especially on a website where people from the global community conjoin. Being that this is the case, two people who view the same topic think they are debating seperate issues. For the Native American who views the resolution 'god is real' he simply scoffs, because for him this is obvious, for him perhaps the trees and the movement of the leaves blowing in the wind represents god. Yet for your average Western empiricist clearly one cannot prove a singular, defined deity exists. Thus both accept the debate yet with a completely different debate in mind. Thus intuition is not a sound basis of creating resolutions and debating them, we need something objective. Thus we make it the absolute requirement that an instigator define his debate and in doing so create a debate which can be, at least substantially more, objective. Failure to define your debate religates the task of defining to the contender, as it is unfair to force someone to debate something they did not intend, although the instigator must suffer this consequence it is justly so, in this way we create a reliable system for creating good, objective debates, and violation of that system represent a negligence through wich allowance of the contender to define the debate preserves order; furthermore we prevent debates meant to entrap and shift goal posts. Thus we are left with the resolution that that, again, behaviorally bad debaters should be removed from DDO, which happens readily now in the Squo. I affirm and await argumentation which affirms zaradi's burden of proof and does not hold the irreprehensible as true (money/morals...ect). As of now, a vote for me is a vote for common sense...I affirm Back to the Vice PresidentSources[1] http://dirtandboogers.com...