(Pro)New Voting System Vs (Con)The Previous One

It's great to see a new member put up a good fight, I was expecting this to go to ffs. I was pleased to see great arguments :). Due to me underestimating him and expecting a FF, there was some basic knowledge I left out that I must clarify. This is common knowledge but it still must be stated, because it is imperative for my arguments. DDO is a debate site, and the debate section is designed to pick a winner, a loser, or either tie the debate. Meaning while we are exchanging ideas, the point is to win the debates you take. The judges ultimately will pick a winner or either tie the debate. This is true for both the new system and the old. I am going to state my rebuttals as (R) and clarify my contentions with (C)R1) The failure to merge is mathematically foolish. My adversary states something that I was going to conclude in the following round and that is thisThe new system = (WTA + 7P) and the old system = (7p only). So what my adversary must to do to fufill his BOP is essentially show that (WTA +7P) < (7P). I must do the same except exchanging the < for a >. What this equates to is for him to fulfill his BOP he must show that there is a better reason to use only the old system opposed to the new system. Where as the new system offers both, he must establish a case to show as where only using the old is better. R2) Default systemThis is irrelevant. Whether it is default or not does not make it superior. He would have to show a correlation between it being the default setting and superiority. as for now we can dismiss this. R3) The 4-3 win over someone who has more convincing arguments is not likely to be a valid RFD under the newer system. Actually this is false and I can cite some debates to prove this. Review the following. (a) . http://www.debate.org...(b) . http://www.debate.org...On (a) in blade runners vote in the comments he clearly states he accounted for grammar weighing heavily in favor of my adversary. In (b) the same thing occurs, most people cite they account for grammar in their decision. The cat that you can not assign a specific point for grammar or conduct does not mean that it can not weigh into your decision as a voter. Remember as I stated at the startIf you award someone a 4 to 3 win, the person you are awarding the 4 points to is essentially awarded the win. The 7 point system offers you the same concept (this does not devalue the criteria of voting, and you can still use s n g and conduct as a guideline for you vote. This was also done in 2 debates within the past day that I linked), while offering the advantage of weighing votes evenly. So on that 4 to 3 win, instead of offering someone an extra point in which gives them an advantage, you are offering them any possible weighed number (x) so that the votes account for a winner fairly. This also mitigates the effects of fluff voting and vote bombing, while upholding the credibility and criteria of votes. As we can see from the 2 debates I linked as well, this does not devalue sources, grammar, or anything else. It is still factored for in voters decisions. R4) The winner-takes-all system discourages people to bother being polite or grammatically coherent. Note (b) debate from above. In 2 votes on their my adversary tries to troll me (which is bad conduct), and both people account for the fact they awarded me and weighed conduct in their decision, and almost awarded me the full win. Again does not discourage grammar or being polite, as this is still weighted in a voters decision to choose a winner. My adversary would have to correlate a relation between bad etiquette and bad grammar with the new system to make a compelling case. R5) The use of sources is essential to debates and should be encouraged in and of itselfSame logic as C4, we can dismiss this argument from lack of correlation to the new system. He would have to show that the new system has discouraged sourcing, or that sourcing does not play a factor in a judges decision. Which I have already shown is false, and that both are still used as guidelines for picking a winner. R6) The new system is detrimental to RFD writing of newer users. This is false. Again even with the old system an RFD from a new user would be something like "Pro had better sources"There was never any justification with this. The only way to fix R6 is to educate new voters on what is considered a viable vote. We can dismiss this point as well. R7) The new system essentially requires exposure the older system in order to cope with voting in the newer one. There is no vital errors in this argument(a) They can still use the old system as a guideline(b) There is no correlation between the new system and discouraging bad votes from new usersNew users are casting bad votes because they don't understand what a viable vote is. Even with the old system the only thing that is occurring is that it is giving them categories to pick votes on. This often leads to new members with bias bombing debates. Again this links in to my C2 from R1, and how a 7 point system can mitigate this. Because that one bad vote would weigh as much as 2 good votes with the old systemThe new system is offering the old system for those who prefer it with a WTA system for those that like it as well. To conclude my response to R7, the only way to fix bad votes are to educate voters. We can mitigate the bad votes with the new system though. Since all of my (C)'s went untouched there is no point to add to them due to only contentions for his round. Conclusion. My adversary stated what he must do to win himself. I will refer you to his own words. (4) (WTA + 7P) < 7PHe has not done soMy BOP is upheld