DDO should only have a "more convincing arguments" point

My Rebuttal:"1) DDO should mirror real life debate"My rebuttal will rest primarily on the fact that there are crucial differences between real life debate and online debate, and these differences are compensated for by the other categories. You pointed out that "If a debater has egregious conduct, that will factor into the judges" decision." Right away, then, you agree that things such as conduct and sources ultimately have to be addressed. How can we ensure that these things will be factored in when people vote online, if the only voting point is for the most convincing arguments? Certainly many would interpet this as meaning that grammar, sources, and especially conduct are irrelevant. The voter would not base their decision off of these. We can trust judges in "real life" debates to factor all of these things into their vote, but we can't trust people online in the same way; it has to be made clear to them upon what they should base their votes.If your solution to the problem of making people understand that these things matter and should also be factored into their vote is that we should have an asterisk that says: "Well, not JUST how convincing the argument is, but also conduct, sources, and grammar," then what is the difference between this method and the method the system currently has? It defeats the purpose of simplifying the voting system to one category if you require that all factors, not just how convincing the argument is, are ultimately accounted for."First, a lot of the best debaters on this site debated competitively in high school or college, so a site that mirrors their real-world experience is more likely to keep them active and on the site"I would agree, but I think this system DOES match real world debates, as I previously argued. Real-world judges implicitly take into account sources and conduct (grammar doesn't apply to speech haha) when they arbitrate, but to ensure that this is maintained in an online setting, the various categories should be set apart and it should be made clear that they all matter."The second impact is that having only a "most convincing arguments" point is more real world. When Obama debates Romney in a presidential debate, viewers decide on who wins based on who made more compelling arguments. They don"t judge the debate based on conduct and sources points."Now you are making a different argument. In this case, you say conduct and sources don't matter for "points". If that is the case, that is a problem! The "fact-checkers" after debates ensure the validity of the various claims; in a sense, they assign "points" for "sources". Conduct is implicit; voters don't like a candidate who is even remotely rude (generally). Online, there are far lower standards, unfortunately. The internet is anonymous, and often rudeness and personal attacks are expected. Since the standards are lower, a presidential debate is not an applicable example. In sum, sources ARE accounted for (and if they aren't they should be, we don't want a candidate who makes unsupported claims), and conduct is expected, whereas it is not necessarily on the internet."2) Having more than just one "convincing argument" point encourages vote bombing and other more subtle forms of cognitive bias in voting.""3) One person, one vote"These are similar claims, I think. I am running out of characters, so I will try to answer everything with the least amount of words :D. This is the strongest part of your argument, I would say. You point out the problems with the current system, based on primarily your debate with Garret, which was skewed by several people's votebombing. This is definitely an issue. I'm not going to argue that. But there are other ways to handle this. A good method off the top of my head to prevent this bias and skewed voting, is a report system. If a large portion of other voters feel that a certain vote is unjustified in its giving all 7 points to one side, they could flag the post. Either the vote could be removed immediately, or it could be passed on to a moderator once it received some number of reports; the moderator could then ask for extensve justification by the voter with citations from the debate. If the revised vote is satisfactory, it passes; if still not, the voter loses the ability to try to vote on that debate again.I think there are enough benefits to the current system to justify its remaining, and there are other ways to solve the problems with it, such as what I just mentioned."(4) Being edgy or funny is overly punished"I don't think so. You yourself compared this to a presidential debate; would a candidate be looked at well if they said someone else pulled a number out of their rectum? You can phrase it every so slightly different to keep it professional; and humor can still exist, just not in a rude or crude way. Look at the vice presidential debate between Biden and Ryan; I thought that debate was rather humorous :D.Counter-Rebuttal:"My opponent makes a key assumption that is wrong. He says, "I will assume that Grammar, Conduct, and Sources would NOT be addressed at all if Convincing Arguments were the only category." However, I explained above how each of these three categories affect "convincing argument" and how judges can award the argument point to the other side for egregious violations of readability, conduct, and sources [such as completely fabricating a source]. But this should only happen in egregious cases. Usually the person with the better argument deserves to win."The assumption wasn't wrong. It was pretty reasonable given my lack of knowledge about what you would argue. As far as my response, I think I addressed it earlier; if it's included anyways in the "Convincing" category, it makes more sense to separate the important categories in an online setting.I am officially out of characters D:! I will address the last part of your rebuttal first thing in my next post. My apologies! I look forward to your response to the rest.