Conduct Should Be Considered When Voting On Debates On Debate.org

Genuine applause to my opponent for an awesome exemplar of poor conduct. It was stylistically very well done, but it wasn't convincing due to Pro's use of argument ad hominem, appeal to extremes, and the equivocation fallacy...and that's what voting on debates on debate.org should be about. Who was more convincing? We should never attack a debater's position based on their personal behavior rather than their actual position. This is called an ad hominem attack. I have a dream...that one day debaters of all types and abilities during the voting period will not be judged by their debating behavior, but by the content of their positions...I have a dream...that one day debaters who have not met their burden of proof shall not win a debate for simply being nice or appropriate...I have a dream...that one day on every debate platform etiquette infractions will never outweigh solid logic. So, Pro says "In order to maintain a higher number of quality debates on DDO, good conduct should be encouraged. What better way to encourage it than to award a point for it?" Disqualification + loss for violating it before voting. Done. Quality of the debates would go up and there would be no need, WHEN VOTING, to consider conduct. With enough disqualifications, these violators would be removed from the site, and over time there would be fewer conduct violators. This would lead to more "quality" debates as posited by Pro, and we wouldn't need to commit an ad hominem fallacy when voting on debates...yay! In the UFC, when an opponent intentionally eye gouges, they are disqualified and given a loss before the judges score the fight. If DDO really values conduct to lead to quality debates, then they should employ a disqualification for conduct prior to voting. We have report buttons, let's use them. So I maintain that WHEN VOTING, we should not consider conduct, because poor conduct should be a disqualification before voting. This disqualification may sound extreme, but according to Pro "If a judge's brain is being attacked by abusive language, it may be harder to remain emotionally detached and objective. In order to make objectivity easier and improve the quality of votes, DDO should continue to encourage good conduct and sportsmanship" Therefore, we should disqualify bad conduct and bad sportsmanship before voting to save judges' brains so they remain objective when they have to vote. Pro continues "The hostile environment that unchecked poor conduct and sportsmanship would create could prevent new members from joining, and even drive away existing members." Right so we should disqualify the violators before the voting period and remove the poor conduct filled debate. This doesn't speak to whether or not we need to consider conduct when voting. Yes, once conduct is removed from the voting picture because disqualifications for poor conduct could be done prior to voting, the quality of the votes and debates will increase, and debaters can focus on making a solid argument instead of worrying about saying please and thank you, encouraging better arguments and fewer logical fallacies. Currently without pre-voting disqualifications for conduct violators on DDO, when voters on debate.org select a debater for "Who had better conduct?" and don't select who had the more convincing arguments/better grammar/relevant citations, they have to commit a logical fallacy and choose the better argument based on their reactions directed against a person's conduct. Voters must decide who had poorer conduct to decide who had better conduct, and this requires fallacy. Furthermore, to give a reluctant testimony, my opponent should not lose in the conduct category for his round 1 arguments, because he used said conduct to help make his argument more convincing, and meet his burden of proof, and I applaud my opponent once again for that. If this were a real case though, Pro should be disqualified, and we could all move on. Again, I was not offended at all by Pro's remarks, they were entertaining and relevant. Nice pic at the end too. I maintain that the quality of debates on debate.org would actually increase if fewer logical fallacies were used to judge debater's arguments. Furthermore, disqualification of egregious violators of conduct prior to voting negates the need for conduct points when voting, and would rapidly increase the quality of debates given Pro's conditions for quality debate. https://www.google.com... hominem