Debate.org should Change their voting system

Vote bombing will not be curedFew debates are vote bombed, and my opponent does not give a single case when vote bombing was not countered. It's possible it could happen, but losing the benefits of voting by categories is not justified by pointing to a theoretical problem. A vote bomb is a vote cast without good reasons, and it's upsetting to a debater when that happens. Nothing in Pro's revised system prevents irrational voting. With no required categories for awarding points, vote bombing will be much harder to detect. I gave an example of a reason for decision (RFD) that would likely evade detection as a vote bomb, and Pro didn't counter it. We ordinarily detect vote bombing when source points are awarded in a debate when sources were not used or were clearly even, or when the conduct point was awarded without a reason, or when obviously even spelling and grammar is given to one side. In fact, the usual tip off is when all the categories are awarded. With a one-vote system, vote bombers will still vote irrationally, but they can pretend the debate was close and escape the obvious tip-offs to vote bombing. Without the triggers to obvious vote bombing, Pro's system is likely to lose more debates to vote bombers than it saves from them. We'll still have vote bombing, it will just be more likely to succeed.Voting by categories strengthens debate skillsI pointed to examples of sports judged subjectively. In each case, there is an elaborate system of categories, much more detailed than the DDO system. Why have those sports built such elaborate systems? For one thing it tells the participants what they must do to succeed, and that let's participants focus on improving their skills in each area of judging. For another, it tells judges what's important in the competition. Establishing more detailed criteria also makes it more difficult to get away with biased judging. Overall, the competition is improved by defining exactly what constitutes winning.In DDO, if a debater loses points by failing to link sources to support his claims, or loses conduct points, or loses points for an indecipherable presentation, he's going to get the message of what he has to improve. Similarly, judging is improved by defining the competitive elements. Pro seems to me to admit that having categories accomplishes these things, and he responds by proposing an amended system in which categories are scored by the scores don't count in determining the win or loss. Proposing an amended system violates the premise of the debate that we are strictly comparing the present system to the one vote system Pro presented in his challenge. No matter, because having categories that don't count in voting loses the advantages of categories defining the competition. Suppose that in baseball umpires would still call balls and strikes, but the count wouldn't result in either a strike out or walk. Having balls and strikes not count would surely solve the problem of umpires making bad calls. But by not counting them, the fundamental nature of the game would be changed. The pitching strategy would change completely. The voting system that has been in place since the beginning of DDO defines what is required to do well in a debate. If anything, the categories should be defined in even more detail, just as the rules of gymnastics define the point loss for nearly every type of slip-up. Perhaps screwing with the fonts or background colors ought to be worth more than a one point penalty. In any case, we should not move in the direction the resolution requires by making it less clear what a debater must do to win, and less clear how judges should score a debate.I can imagine many changes in the voting system to improve matters. For example, perhaps there should be a mechanism to counter vote bombs after the formal voting period has ended. Some sports have mechanisms to contest bad judging and resolve disputes quickly at the close of a competition. I'm not claiming that it's impossible to improve the present system. The resolution, however, is a step backwards. It should be voted down.