Pet peeves regarding debates

There are a number of peeves I encounter in debate that frankly fry my bacon. Here's a few. Feel free to comment by addition, criticism, or retraction.

1. Declaring victory in early rounds of multiple-round debates.

2. Initiating a debate, then declaring waived rounds.

3. Making claims as fact without scholastic sourcing.

4. One of my favorites: using wiki as a source when other, more scholastic sources are available, even within wiki.

5. Declaring a debate by interrogative

Full disclosure: I've probably violated all these peeves, but not recently.

good points except for spelling, but that may be because I notoriously spell badly on keyboard. Irony: I love excessive burn on bacon. It probably makes it more carcinogenic. In California.

Making new arguments in the final round as contender (thankfully I haven't seen this here recently)

I think waiving is perfectly ok.

I think I have done all of these before. 

Good one!

Give me a better reason that the initiator wanting to see the contender's argument first. You initiate a debate [not you, personally], have the balls to present your case first!

If you have don't have PTSD from DDO (debate.org), you'll find that waiving is a perfect way to see if your opponent will forfeit or troll

I joined DDO, not knowing, but realizing within a month it was already dead. I still maintain waiving is a chickenshyte tactic. like I had, get some balls. Argue your debate as initiator first; then see if your opponent forfeits or trolls, or anything else. I've had at least two debates wherein my opponent forfeited from scratch. I still argued my rounds, just for the practice of argument. It does not make a useless debate.

Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.

This is basic.

If you constantly attack without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!) you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance).

These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they often repeatedly claim in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate.

They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt.

They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.

However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt.

You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.

I call these creatures the "Gingerbread Men".

ive done 1 only when my opponent forfiets

 A rush-to-declare-victory is an almost sure sign of incompetence (missing the point).

Also, a rush-to-disqualify your debate partner is an almost sure sign of a closed-minded-individual (bubble head).