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

Good Luck On Theory Violation: 1) I meet Interpretation. -He claims the debate is already over. However, he is way off. On interpretation, he originally says, "The affirmative should specify where the money for their plan is coming from"… I meet the interpretation since there is no money necessary for the plan. You ask where the money is coming from? Well… no where since there IS no money necessary to enact the plan. That's what I said last round but apparently my opponent doesn't get that. 2) I don't Violate. -If you look back to my plan, ALL changes in status quo are software creation. And if you look to the people that run this site (Webcorp), they are self-employed and do this for no money and they need no more money to make this software (they do it from scratch). 3) Flow through: "Funding is by normal means of Webcorp" -The plan is ‘theoretically' ONLY meant to change status quo. If I meant to change their funding policy, THEN it would be abusive to not include it in the plan. But since the funding will remain concurrent, there is no reason to specify changing status quo. 4) Drop Standards (since there is no reason for them). 5) The only advantage I gained is you wasting your time attacking something that is useless. You waste your own time so DROP abuse and therefore, DROP voter for Theory Violation. Debate.org Topicality: 1) Debate.org would be nothing without its members. -If there were no members, it would lead to the destruction of the site. In other words, by strengthening the welfare of the members, the strength of debate.org will effectively increase as well. 2) I meet the definition. -Let's really look at the definition. Just for fun I will CAPS the words that link to the members: Debate.org is defined as: "a MEMBERSHIP-based online DEBATING service designed to provide an easy and free system for our MEMBERS to intellectually challenge, DEBATE and communicate with EACH OTHER on the Web" ----Interesting… If the members didn't matter, then why are they in the definition so much? And if there were no members, then how would the DEBATE part of the definition be upheld? The plan strengthens the members and effectively strengthens the site. Not to mention that the first THREE WORDS of the definition ALONE makes me meet the definition straight up. This topicality is ridiculous. 3) His violation is therefore irrelevant. 4) Limits are ridiculous. -If a topic were to relate to the government. Would it be non-topical to talk about the president or congress? And that even though they MAKE UP the government it extends the ground too much?!? Cross-apply this to debate.org. WE MAKE UP THE WEBSITE… IT WOULD BE NOTHING WITHOUT US. 5) Re-establish my original 4 points. -In my original argument against this T. I simply explain what I have just now. Helping the members helps the site. 6) Losing any one of the definition, interpretation, standards, OR voters, the whole T drops. I meet the definitions, the interpretation doesn't meet with the membership part of the definition, the standards are abusive and irrelevant, and the voters are thus useless. "Theoretical Illegitimacies" of the IM CP: Against Interpretation: 1) Debaters don't have to stick with what they originally said. If that were true, then there would be no point to anything past round 1. 2) I don't change what I say, I simply add new arguments. Against Violation: -Please quote me where I change direction or drop anything in my case. I never ‘severed from my original advocacy.' I simply say your CP is topical and thus should not be accepted. Against Standards: 1) You accepted the debate thus making the debate-ability yours to accept or ignore. 2) Pre-round preparation isn't necessary. Three days of prep is PLENTY for getting stuff against anything I say. This argument would only fly in a real-life round and has NO GROUND on an online debate. Against Voters: -There IS fairness. We both have the same amount of prep-time. We both willingly accepted the topic. -Accepting any of these arguments drops the theory violation and thus the arguments against the CP still stand. Instant-Messenger CP: 1) The CP affirms the resolution STILL. We should increase welfare, but not by using IM's?!? Last time I checked, we debate the topic, not my plan. 2) ALL harms in IM's could be done on PM's as well. My plan does NOT increase any threat to any member. 3) Any risk to any member would be self-induced. My plan forces NO ONE into any situation and all new features from my plan would be optional, not madatory. 4) Several members want instant messengers for Cross-Examination and convenient conversation. Thus more happiness in the members of debate.org which supports the definition and therefore supports the welfare. Therefore, you should prefer my plan since more people will be happy with the option of Cross-Examination LIVE! The rest of his arguments are dropped. Vote PRO! Thanks for this great debate!