For every dumb Debate there is someone who answers, Cons/Pros should just leave them alone

Pro begins by stating that I have suggested battling a deformed monster would be fun. Nowhere in the debate that I ever say that, therefore Pro has straw manned my arguments. Instead, here's what I wrote in R1 that Pro never responded to: "3. Sometimes it is amusing/challenging to come up with a legitimate argument against a joke topics. Usually this evokes some sort of creativity, typically in the form of semantics arguments. For example, one of my favorite debates I've done had the resolution "It is immoral to molest handicapped orphans" or something. I wound up winning the debate based on my creative argument, giving both myself, my opponent and the audience some entertainment." Next Pro writes, "By accepting the debate you are sacrificing time and effort and wasting energy on a unimportant debate rather than challenging a real topic." This does not answer my 3rd point (see above) and in fact that point negates this argument. What I said was that if one works to debate something, and they make a frivolous argument legit, then they are using their brain and working creatively thus not making the debate a total 'waste.' Pro continues, "And let's say that one does accepts it and ends up giving the full rounds the arguments needed? Would people vote for it? It would be in the voting period forever. Reason for that is that people deemed it unworthy of final judgment. So in the end it is just a waste of space." << -- Fixed typos <--- Anyway, this statement is completely non-sensical. Would people vote for it? We should assume so, because after all, a frivolous title will probably garner some attention. For instance, I recently accepted a debate titled "Eagles should be forced to wear shoes." I was intrigued by the ridiculous title, and I think other people would be intrigued by it too this assuming that yes people would actually click to vote on it. Also, debates are only in the voting period forever if they're structured that way (to be voted upon indefinitely). This could be said about a ton of debates. In short, Pro has not proven that these debates are a "waste of space." So let's move on to my Pro's actual rebuttal. In response to point 1, Pro writes that one simply shouldn't accept a frivolous debate and instead give attention to a more interesting debate. This is no way, shape or form combats my argument about why and how accepting a debate actually garners it LESS attention. As a reminder, I will copy and paste what I wrote under point 1 so you can see how this argument trumps Pro's and how he did not negate it at all: "By accepting the debate you are sacrificing time and effort and wasting energy on a unimportant debate rather than challenging a real topic. And let's say that one does accepts it and ends up giving the full rounds the arguements needed? Would people vote for it? It would be in the voting period forever. Reason for that is that people deemed it unworthy of final judgement. So in the end it is just a waste of space." In response to point 2, Pro says, "My opponent states that they took a debate and forfeited the first round. Now in my knowledge you just entered a race and not ran. So by forfeiting the first round one didn't really debate. So this statement does not hinder or help you case, nor does it help or hinder mine." Again, this is entirely non-sensical and random. My second point was about how forfeiting a round simply makes it not show up on the home page during the voting period, meaning less people will see it, meaning again it takes away attention from the instigator. Pro did not combat this reality and instead straw manned another one of my arguments. Third, Pro says he "responded in the first paragraph" though my introduction in this round (and copied and pasted 3rd point) show how actually Pro completely ignored this argument, therefore my third argument must also be extended. And finally, in response to my fourth point about how accepting a debate does no real harm, Pro merely says that one should go for a more "serious" debate to gain experience and actually challenge themselves. While I agree that accepting frivolous debates for the easy victory is not exactly something incredibly admirable (in the sense that it doesn't make the contender any more impressive), this still is not enough to explain why accepting is 'harmful' or in any way negative. In fact, this could easily be combated by noting one takes both serious debates and debates that take a little more creativity. To prove my point - and to provide some sources - I'll link to some "frivolous debates" in which you can see that a contender has actually made some clever, intelligent, witty or some kind of decent argument against a frivolous topic. However in conclusion, please extend all of my arguments up until this point - and as always - I wish Pro the best. Examples: - http://www.debate.org... - http://www.debate.org... - http://www.debate.org...