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

Answering- 1. "If you're confused, don't take the debate. We're not all college students here, and I'm sure some of us don't even know English as our first language." First of all, that only applies to the argument that they don't know what it says. It does not apply to the 'Unconstitutional' argument because he thought he knew what he was doing, accepted the debate, got confused about what he was debating, and realized he did not want to debate it. Providing a crisp, clean tag of what the topic is about would allow people to glance at it and decide whether or not to take it. 2. "You said that my argument is based largely on telling would-be contenders not to make mistakes. You fail to see the intense irony here." My argument was not the same. Instigators have the duty to make a clear resolution. Having poor worded topics discourages voters and contenders. Also, the 'mistakes' that the instigators make are not the same. Most of the topic flaws are major grammatical errors that don't make sense, aren't clear, or aren't a resolution at all. The mistakes that you say not to make are human mistakes that result from the fact that they think they understand the topic from the key words. To ask what your asking, is have every contender read the resolution and the arguments 10 times, even if they get it. I seriously doubt people would be up for that. 3. "would-be contenders just need to GLANCE at the topic before taking the debate. I hadn't previously considered the art of skimming a single sentence, but that seems to be what you're advocating as responsible action." I do not advocate glancing, I'm saying that is HUMAN NATURE and that's what people are going to do. As I said, you can't expect people to read over the resolution 10 times, and that is what your saying. Sure, you have the choice of debating, but what if you want to take the debate? Raisor wanted to debate that income tax is constitutional, but later found out that that was not the topic. Most of the opening arguments are fine, and would be perfectly fine to debate, but the resolution throws many people off and discourages contenders to debate. 4. "There should be NO confusion about what the stance is, he has his opening statements laying there in plain sight." See #1, that only applies to one argument, and #2+#3, you can't expect readers to read over it 10 times, it throws people off on stances, and it discourages voters. 5. "While good and bad are in fact opposites, there is a middle ground. In the first case, con would only have to show that the PS3 is mediocre, since that's better than bad. however, mediocre would be on Pro's side in the second case, since mediocre is not good. An example of double negatives actually meaning something" First of all, not a good system to own is not a double-negative, so you can't use that for an example. Responding back to me with a another debate, "PS3 is NOT not a bad system' is a double negative. Good and bad are adjectives. Second, there is no 'middle team' on debate.org. By your definition, the Resolution should read 'The Playstation 3 is not a terrible system to own, nor mediocre, nor good, nor great, nor spectaclar, nor (insert adjective), but in fact is a bad system to own'. You can't expect that. The basis of the debate was, I say bad, you say good, not proving wrong little grammatical technicalities. responding to your defense on my Offense- 1. "First, double negatives are _not_ grammatically _in_correct (I hope that statement didn't confuse you). They might be something to avoid in essays or something, but this is a casual community." First, that is a double-negative. I think that's what your getting at, but it is grammatically incorrect, and you give no warrant behind this. My argument is factual, while your's is an empty statment. Second, So, the rules of the english language don't apply in causual communities? Using 'casual' language spills over into other parts of our lives. If we use incorrect grammar all of the time, don't you think that'll become a habit? Wouldn't you be better on those 'essays' you take? That also links to all of the 3 impx. 2. "Second, 'not unconstitutional' is not confusing. Whoever took that debate clearly did not see the word 'not'... it's not like he saw it and thought it didn't mean anything... But to blame this on the instigator... as if he was the one not doing his duty?" How can we be sure he didn't? My guess is he saw the key words 'taxes' and 'unconstitutional' and did not pick apart every word in the resolution. You can't expect him to read it over a thousand times and realize that. He's only human. Also it is the instigator's fault. It is their burden to make a clear, crisp, contextual topic so you don't have to spend ten minutes reading their opening argument and decide that you don't know anything about it. 3. "Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam See, that probably did it. " That actually made me laugh... haha. 4. "We're not mind-readers, we shouldn't have to know what's going to annoy you, neither should we have to avoid it if we did know." no, you can't read minds, but I'm sure a lot of people agree with me. There is not a real big reason behind this, but I personally can't stand having to read a million opening arguments when I could read a few topic titles, and I'm SURE that people don't like to waste their time either. 5. "bad sentence still pack strong punch. big hurt on enemy still mean big win. words no, but yes to the ideas! they make side." A. Capatalize 'B'. B. its 'packs'. C. Capatilize 'B'. D. You sound like Tarzan in that second sentence. It's 'means' E. Start second sentence with A. F. still means A big win, not 'still means big win'. G. Capatilize 'W'. H. 'words no' is inconclusive. There is no verb. I. 'yes to the ideas'. Of what? J. Capatalize 'T'. K. 'they make side'. Wow. Ok. Wow. What? These grammatical errors aren't convincing anyone. Placing grammatical correct sentences help people UNDERSTAND it better. How are they supposed to know what your ideas ARE? The point of debate is persuasion, and I'm sure no ones going to be pursuaded you talk like Tarzan. 5. "While I'll admit that I'm even annoyed at things like that, I just don't take the challenge. " HA! YOU'RE ANNOYED! Thanks for taking out your own argument. Also, not taking the debate still takes away our education. It went uncontested that it linked to the impacts. Our rhetoric skills should be put to good use and not ignored for a fixable reason. None of us talk that poorly in normal convesation. You should not have to use poor grammatical skills that you obviously have. Using proper grammar takes more education from the round. Offense- 1. Anyway, Resolutions should be perfectly clear so none of us are confused or annoyed. People lose debates based on humanly mistakes that everyone has. This site is about education, and should be treated with respect. 2. Non-resolutional resolutions should provide clear ground for both sides and not lead to confusion. 3. Why should we degrade ourselves to poor rhetoric skills? Debate is one place we can seperate ourselves from socicety and put our knowledge to good use. Using poor grammar does not help ANYONE. 4. It is the instigators duty to give a clear resolution. Every debate that has been proposed, execpt the ones in challenge now, have been accepted. Yet, people are confused about topics. Most people accept challenges because they think they believe what it says, but are confusing and have double-negatives. I just have one question, How would having poor grammar help anyone? I mean really, c'mon. Pro 4 prez.