Bad Debaters Should Be Removed from DDO

There's a few things that need to be clarified in this debate:1. I'm 100%, entirely befuddled as to these "rules" Pro references constantly. The only rules to this debate was that first round was to be acceptance and that we couldn't make new arguments in the final round. Any rules that he keeps referencing are rules that I never agreed to abide by nor enacted for this debate. 2. His response of "the rules are the rules and you can't break them" only begs the question of why those rules should be followed in the first place and if there isn't a better version of debate that we can have i.e. we can contest definitions. Even if his resposne of "we should follow the rules because they're the rules" is valid, which it's not because it's entirely circular, it's literally the is/ought fallacy -- just because they *are* the rules, doesn't mean they ought to be the rules. He needs to actually be advocating for why we ought not be able to contest definitions within the debate in order to be winning here, without it there's no reason not to be preferring my definition.With that, let's go to my definition. Extend out my definition of bad as being of poor quality, meaning that we're talking about bad debaters in terms of skill rather than bad behavioral debaters. And, extend out the two reasons I gave for why you're preferring this definition, a) being that it's the most accurate definition meaning it's best to use for the debate and b) it's the best fitting definition for the entire point of the debate, since if I wanted to talk about behaviorally bad debaters there's a lot better words to use than "bad" for that. His responses to these reasons are all asking me what the point of those are, but I explained the warrants and impacts behind those arguments pretty clearly. You're preferring my definition. My opponent also has the most annoying habit of quoting 1-2 words of my argument and using those words to strawman my argument. Extend out the six reasons I give for me introducing a new definition doesn't mean this debate should just be ff'd. Extend the first out saying that there was no rule about a forfeit in this scenario in the round one set up, so there's no reason for you as a judge to go for this. He only says he doesn't understand what I'm saying in response, which means he doesn't actually make a response to it. Extend my second response saying that by denying us the opportunity to contest definitions you cut off an entire half of the debate to be discussed. His only response to this is to say that it's negligence on my part, which isn't even my argument (hint - misquoting me to strawman). Extend the fifth reason out that there's no reason why me not defining stuff in the first round means that he gets to set the "official" definitions. His response of it's unfair to him because he joined the debate under false pretenses which is a) horsesh*t because he knew full well what I wanted to discuss, and b) applies the same way the other way around -- it's unfair to me for him to force his definition onto me when my intentions were to discuss bad quality debaters, not behaviorally bad debaters. And then extend the sixth argument saying that there's no reason to forfeit the debate when I have arguments for his definition as well. He effectively agrees to this, but that doesn't mean I can't argue for my own definition as well. So what we have so far is that a) you're preferring my definition and his attempts to strawman my reasons to prefer my definition over his have failed, and that b) you're not just straight 7-pointing in his favor because I'm contesting the definition. So extend out the three arguments I make for why bad quality debaters shouldn't be kicked off the site. It goes 100% dropped. Hold him to this mistake. But then off the reasons why we still don't kick people off on his definition. Extend out my first reason saying that behaviorally bad debaters can still be academically good debaters, so kicking them off as opposed to reforming them lowers the amount of quality discussion on the site, which is bad for the site overall. His response is that I'm throwing away morality for money, which has never been and never will be the argument I'm making. The only possible monetary argument I could be making is that there will be less traffic on the site, but that only matters insofar as it gives less incentive for Juggle to make improvements to the site that aid academic and intellectual debate, which isn't a "money over morality" thing at all. His repeated attempts to strawman my arguments are costing him the debate. His other response is that we don't know if reforming bad members is even an option, but a) my opponent has given us no reason to believe that we can't do it, and b) even if it's not probable, we still ought to try rather than just forsake the possibility of reforming them and giving them the boot entirely. The more behaviorally good members we can have on the site to increase academic and intellectual discussion on the site, the better off the site is, which isn't possible if we just kick off members outright. He puts the same argument against my second reason, and I already responded to it above, so you can extend out the second reason as kicking off bad members lowers site traffic, which gives juggle less incentive to improve the site for better debating. So at this point of the debate the following is clear: a) you're preferring my definition of bad over his and he dropped all the reasons I give for why we don't get rid of all bad quality debaters so I'm winning on my definition and b) My arguments on his definition for why we don't get rid of behaviorally bad debaters stand against his strawmanned responses. Meaning that no matter which definition you go with as a judge, *I'M STILL WINNING THIS DEBATE*. So that just leaves one question: what about the K?Long story short: the K is garbage. Let's look at it in detail.First off is that the link story is garbage. There's nothing inherently linking the K to my case. I'm not calling anyone bad, and my case isn't doing that either.Second off is that the link story isn't unique to just me, if I'm even calling people bad: by sheer necesity of advocating for kicking off behaviorally bad members of the site, he's still calling them bad behaviorally, which leads to this same social rejection. Meaning he bites into the K himself.Third off is that there's nothing linking calling someone bad and this social rejection that the debaters in question feel. His source talks about how if I think someone is an a**hole I'm more likely to treat them as if they are an a**hole, but that's not what his K is advocating for.Fourth off is that negative emotions expressed against us can actually motivate us to improve and be used against people who are of poor quality to motivate them to improve[1]. So this social rejection he's talking about isn't even the necessary internal link, nor is it even necessarily bad. Fifth is that even if his internal link story is real and that people feel this bad social rejection and don't improve because of it. there's no impact to the K. The only kind of impact he's extending off of the K is as a reason to prefer his definition, so even if you buy the K, it just means we use his definition which is a definition I'm still winning on. Sixth is that affirming the resolution doesn't actually solve for the harms of the K. If anything it makes the impacts of this social rejection amplified. If you thought that being rejected and told that you were bad was the worst of it, imagine being so bad that you're kicked off the site. Talk about social rejection. Seventh is that the solution to the problem posed by the K is actually negating the resolution. I'm the one trying to encourage people to become better and not giving them the boot from the site. This means that I'm the one fixing the social rejection that they're feeling and helping them improve, whereas my opponent is only making the problem worse. So at the end of the day, the K is just really, really, really, really, really bad. There's about four different reasons you don't buy the K, a reason to ignore the K entirely because it's irrelevant, and a few reasons to straight up vote for me because of the K. So this makes the debate really, really simple to understand.1. You're preferring my definition, and he hasn't made a single argument in favor of it. This means I win the debate by default. 2. Even if you go for his definition, my arguments are standing at the end of the day meaning I'm winning on his definition as well. 3. Read his last round really carefully. 100% of his last round was spent responding to me. Where are his arguments for why we ought to be kicking people off of DDO for behing behaviorally bad? There's physically nothing he can advance for why he's winning the debate because he has 0 offense. 4. Even if you view the K as offense, which it isn't because there isn't any kind of impact to it, there's absolutely nothing behind the K because it's just sooooooo bad....if anything you vote for me off of it. Source:[1] - http://www.positivityblog.com...;