Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of www.debate.org.

We have agreed to a Round 1/2 will be 8,000 character limit and round 3/4 will be 5,000 character limit. Against the No-Instant Messenger Counter-plan: 1) The counter-plan is topical. -If you accept the counter-plan, then you must accept the resolution. He then goes on to accept A, C, and D points. 2) The A, C, and D points are enough to affirm the resolution. 3) Observation 2 ONLY creates a competition between Affirmative and Affirmative. 4) Regardless, the instant messaging system is beneficial for the welfare of debate. org. A) Common Sense - This is Logical Policy and people being able to communicate immediately would not present a greater threat than people communicating slowly. B) If someone were to break the rules, he/she could be banned. C) Your evidence is only MSN specific and does not relate to the regulated and rule affiliated site that debate. org is. (not debate. org specific) 5) Pass both, you still pass the affirmative plan. 6) Cross-Examination will remain to not exist under the counter-plan. 7) If a member didn't want to use it for whatever reason, that person could just ignore the option. Debate. org forces nothing upon its members. Off Case 2: 1) Funding is by normal means of Webcorp. -So essentially they would create the software. They created everything from scratch and would be easily capable of creating the plan. No additional funding would be necessary. Any funding that may be necessary would A) Be negatives job to point out and B) Would be substantially outweighed by the increase of revenues due to the more activity that is inevitable. Off Case 3: Against B--> Debate. org would have a MUCH greater welfare. 1) You claim the benefits of your counter-plan, but these benefits are the exact same as my plan (minus 1) 2) Fewer members would be upset because of the vote-bombers being forced to extinction. 3) Because of this, more members would stay once they join debate. org, thus the welfare of it is increased by terms of welfare, members, and fewer vote-bombing attacks. 4) Turn this T! Against 3 (Limits)--> In order to increase the welfare of the website, you must first benefit the members. It's kind of like a PB and J sand which. Increasing the taste of it, you must first make sure you have a high quality of Peanut Butter. Against D (Voters)--> 1) The Judge should be voting on who creates the better debate. org. The person who advocates happier members vs. the one who does not. I create happier members so thus you must vote PRO! 2) I created the topic but you accepted the topic, and thus my interpretation of it. Off Case 4 (DA)--> SO MANY PROBLEMS: 1) Not Unique. This is already happening. However, with this format it would be easier to spot any sort of problems. 2) No Link. My opponent only shows how this COULD happen and not that it WOULD happen. 3) No substantial harms. There is no evidence that says that debaters are going to go out and kill people to help their case. No status quo will change to any harm by passing the plan. Therefore, the plan is COMPLETELY net-beneficial. So therefore, turn this DA! Also, add on top of this a KRITIK: A) My opponent is a debater. B) Evidence push: Have you ever killed anyone to strengthen a case? C) Voter: You can't claim a debater disadvantage if you are a debater and don't do what your evidence says you do. D) Accept the Kritik. I am a debater and I have never harmed anyone physically OR mentally to help my debating evidence or skills. Off Case 5 (Porn CP)--> 1) Terms and Agreements disband pornography. 2) Secret Groups are only secret from other members and not from the moderators of this site. 3) There was no link to the disadvantage of pornography. If it is a secret group, it will be kept from the people that don't want to see that stuff anyway. 4) Most debate. org members come here to debate. Therefore, they would not be interested in posting pornography and thus debate. org would remain clean ANYWAY. I for one want to keep this site clean and I would report anyone that thought and acted otherwise. 5) The benefits of groups FAR OUTWEIGHS the costs of them. Look at facebook, I have yet to see porn on those groups. Yet I have been successful in running a 53 person, double-elimination tournament on them. And no one went out to kill anyone to win it. 6) Cross-apply 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 against this CP except make it specific to group/event creations. The same arguments apply here since if you didn't like it, don't use it. But ask people, most of them support groups and events on here. Same with instant messaging. If you don't believe me, read the comment section of this very debate. -Also, if you pass both the counterplans, they contradict each other so negative must choose one of these. 7) CLARIFICATION: The admin's are ONLY specific to the group that they created.