Debate challenge protocol

If I initiate a challenged debate,  and have established the protocol, such as number of rounds, time for argument, and for voting, and that challenge is accepted, and only then do I give notice of having no time to devote to the debate, should I expect you would agree to a tied result?

No, there is nothing in the policy regarding this consequence.

How would you react, and why? Honest question.

I’d say the challenger has no obligation to agree, but if they don’t they’re kind of a dick.

I have been on the challenger side of this question on 4 occasions.   We didn’t agree to tie but we did agree to ask mods to wipe out the debate.  On two occasions, we remade the debate with adjusted terms and on two occasions, we  let the debate die (one promised to resubmit later but that was a year and a half ago).   

If I was was in your particular debate with undefeatable, I would not agree to tie.  I would agree to let undefeatable remake the debate with longer times for argument, preserving existing arguments precisely.  If such an agreement was arrived at, good sportsmanship should oblige the instigator to note the contender’s generosity and request automatic conduct award to contender.  

Yes, that debate is the root of this string, and, no, I did not accept. I see no justification to do so and in the refusal, I advised that my opponent can concede, forfeit, or continue the debate as is. One's time availability ought to be thought through before the debate is challenged. We're adults here, mostly. I expect time availability is a known quantity, and the challenge is organized appropriately. Do-over is a child's game. Some time ago, when I saw that my time was going to be a brief constraint, I advised the mods that I was leaving for a period, but would return, and wanted my membership to remain intact.

Well, as a debater who has accidentally misposted poetry, mafia reads, and args from other debates in my argument and benefitted from my opponent’s agreement to re-do,  I can’t agree that do-over is a child’s game.  I don’t think improving on the argument is fair but a request to adjust arg times in exchange for a conduct point seems like grown up gameplay to me. 

Nope. I learned a hard lesson about debate set-up assurance in my first debate which I lost, primarily over definitions. That was the debate with you. Nope. No do overs. Had I even thought about that tactic then, I’d have refused to propose it.

Oromagi would intentionally accept multiple debates from users he knew were going to get banned or were so spread-out he figured they'd miss rounds or post shallow crap just to spam wins.

Ramshutu spearheaded me being punished for the same thing, the only difference being that because I am so intelligent and observant, it was proven I knew this user would get banned with more assurance than Oromagi could be proven in his scenarios.

I have had multiple, at least 12, debates robbed directly from me that would have resulted in an elo-gain because of my honesty to the mod team about users. Many banned users got banned because of reports I myself made in the first place.

I even had debates that I made and the banned user accepted, deleted.

I say at least 12 because it was 12 if I recall correctly, yet due to that I became phobic of accepting new users' debates as I didn't want to waste effort on what would get deleted.

I wouldn't blame this phobia on 'holding me back' it's actually proven quite wise indeed as I study my opponents more when debating and structure things to make it awkward for their particular style of debating (or at least I try to) which I can't really do with a new user (or returning banned user who appears new).

As for this scenario, Oromagi has even personally refused this but he has had the fortune of his opponents barely ever actually asking for mercy.

On the other hand, David, Ramshutu and plenty of other high-rankers are provably assholes to opponents who beg for mercy based on time/effort constraints or who entered a debate on the wrong side because of a 'instigator is Con' trap or something along those lines.

The truth is I have indeed agreed to delete debates entirely, not just tie them, in this scenario with 2 specific people before if I recall correctly. I show respect to respectful opponents. If my opponent is a complete and utter prick, I neither show nor ever request mercy from them in this scenario either way around. 

I admit to some ignorance regarding elo rating, but, in principle, I get it. One question I have is:

When two rated players debate, and one is rated higher than another, I take that to mean that the probability is that the higher-rated player will win.   And that if the higher player does win, his rating point gain is not a large number, because the probability was his/hers anyway. But if the lower rated player wins, that player rises by more points than the higher player would have won. In other words, the points are transferred between the players, and not gained [or lost] to a generic points pool from/to which all payers either gain or lose.  Were you and I to debate [we have, a couple of times] the points won or lost are between us, alone, and no other player is affected.  And so, the greatest effect in rating change is between players who are closely rated. Are these assumptions correct?

I also just realized a sticking point I had. I think this is correct:  only rated debates assign points to the participants. Unrated debates score no points in spite of a win. I don't think I've ever engaged in an unrated debate. I don't see the point. Sure, the I-could-give-a-flying-fling is only effective for a non-competitive debater. And that's an oxymoron.

Since I have inferred, by my declaration that the question was asked in honesty, and, thereby expected honest answers, I thought it would be prudent [honest?] to explain the why of my decision on the point that generated this topic: the debate, https://www.debateart.com/debates/3021-audio-vs-visual-effects-for-movies

with Undefeatable, in which I declined his query to tie the debate [see his comment #6] instead of continue. Here's my reason[s]:

1. I do not willingly initiate or accept a debate with the intent to tie, or lose. I am a competitive sportsman. I play to win, acknowledging that loss is possible, but still only by a full effort.

2. I refer to my opponent's profile in which he says [as rule #2]: Never give up or forfeit. I read that as declarative and exemplary of my intent: win, or lose. 'Tie' is not spelled either way. Nor is cancelling the debate, which is another alternate consequence. Tie is a voter's choice. I take a member at their word, unless there is ample evidence to the contrary, which should be demonstrated and not assumed.

3. In my opponent's profile, he has singled out a few members as being either nemeses, or eliminated. Of the former, there are several names. Of the latter, I, alone am mentioned, but my opponent does not define what either term means. 'Eliminated' does not conjure any positive definitions, therefore, I'm not inclined to be generous with requests that would violate my reasons 1 & 2, above. To do otherwise would violate my own rule of competition.