DDO should keep a voting system with multiple categories

Roys case1. Competitive sports We should use real debate as a guideline for crafting a judging system not sports. Roy argues that academic debate is worthless and I'll get to that later, but it's pretty hard to argue that academic debate is so bad that we should look instead to figure skating to determine which way of judging is better. Roy hasn't given a compelling distinction between real world and online debate that justifies a totally different voting system, and a one judge one vote system is how the people who care the most about debate have decided is the most fair way to decide a round.I have two turns on this argument. First, strategic voting occurs in these judging systems even up to the olympic level. The stigma behind voting strategically at an olympic event is much higher than a meaningless online debate, and yet it still happens because of the vast amounts of leeway judges are given in their scoring. The old system was one where the judges would essentially rank skaters against eachother which is closer to my system than Roys[1]. By distinct contrast, the subjectivity in the current categorical system allows strategic voting, such as in Sochi where the Russian skater won despite making some clear mistakes. Her score in the olympics was 22 points better than her personal best previously, just a month before. That's over a 10% increase, because the Russian judges wanted her to win and because the categorical system allowed them to strategically vote. As TheWire points out[2] this kind of voting makes figure skating seem laughable. Secondly, Roy wants a simpler judging system. So do I, and that's why you need to vote Con. I've literally handed a lay judge a ballot and briefed her on how to judge the debate on the way to the room. DDO's system is far more complex than a simple "The better debate was done by X" system and doing that would've been impossible. What's more complex, a ballot that asks who did the better debating, or one with four different categories and no consensus as to when to vote on each?2. The categories are appropriate Roy argues the main audience for debates are those who read the debate but don't vote. This is irrelevant when we're talking about what's fairest to debaters. Roy's arguments for the categories aren't enough to justify the status quo. Sure conduct is important, but it's important in real world debate too. If a debater is too rude their arguments become much less compelling and the judge will vote them down, anyone who's competed in real world debate has witnessed something like this happening. Spelling and grammar is also solved by my proposed system. If someones arguments are so poorly written that they can't be read, their arguments are not compelling and the debate goes to their opponent. My system solves for everything Roy wants, conduct and spelling are important but my system better avoids the pitfall of someone strategically voting based on a tiny spelling error. Roy shoots himself in the foot when he argues that arguments are actually two parts, the logic and the facts. This is true and is exactly why most real life debaters are extremely uncomfortable with decoupling sources with arguments because without sources your arguments become much less compelling. Voting on both sources and arguments seems redundant because they're two sides of the same coin, so many experienced judges here just vote on the arguments leading to an inexperienced judge's vote usually outweighing their vote. By seperating arguments from sources, DDO is only handing a blank check to bad voters who want to add points to their favored side. Roy argues that the current system tells new members what being a good debater is all about, except it really doesn't. A much better way of learning how to be a good debater is to read good debates, emulate good debaters and practice. This is how virtually everyone becomes good on DDO, not by reading the voting categories. The only real takeaway here is that a one judge one vote system solves the problems with the current system while also valuing the important things in the current system. 3. Votebombing This argument is completely turned by my second contention. Roy wants to change the weighing of the points, but why bother? If a debaters spelling is so horrendous that their case is literally incoherent, they can't possibly win arguments either. A biased voter is going to do everything he can to award as many points as possible to their side due to the perverse incentives, and even if he doesn't biased voting is bad even at a more micro level. Moreover Juggle would never program this, removing categories is a much easier sell.As for a template cutting down on votebombing we have the current system to look to to see if that's correct and we know it is because the current multi category template actually facilitates bad voting.My case I. Real world debateRoy basically dropped this argument. He argues that most "real" debate is informal but this isn't what the argument means. The argument compares scored formal real world debate to scored formal online debate and we should presume that the tried and true voting systems of real world debate leagues like the NFL are better than DDOs because the people who actually know the most about debate use this system. Roy argues that online debate needs more guidelines because people tend to be rude on the internet, but my case still solves for this and if someone is being extremely rude they don't deserve to win the debate but with conduct being only 1 point, they still can. Moreover conduct violations are better dealt with by a moderator. Roy attacks real world debate as having tons of jargon and technicalites but this isn't the case for all events. Public Forum debate is specifically designed to convince lay people, and the majority of the time judges are lay "mommy judges", but they still don't use a template system because it's confusing and allows for strategic voting in panels. The system is made even worse in that voters have the choice to vote on a category or not. Imagine if real world debate used the DDO system and two judges voted for one team only on arguments and one voted the opposite way with every category, leading to a 7-6 point win for the team that only got one judge to vote for them. This kind of thing is allowed on DDO, and would reasonably be considered absurd anywhere else. Biased voters are going to be far more likely to fill in every category they can justify than an honest voter, giving their vote more weight. II. Strategic votingRoys sample is far too small to be considered valid and doesn't prove my system would be bad. Even if bad voting is rare, if I can mitigate it I win the advantage. He argues that the change might lead to more ties. This is certainly possible, but it's better to have a tie from valid votes than it is to have someone lose for dumb reasons. In one of the debates Roy cited[3] (where a votebomb was evidently removed after he wrote his round), a voter left the RFD that everything else was tied but "sources on Cons aid his side more" which is complete fluff but decided the debate. Roy never refutes my prisoners dilemna argument. The current system creates a pervese incentive to vote as close to 7 as can be justified. This is why in a recent poll[4] members voted 16-0 that they've seen people strategically vote, with Zaradi concluding "It's pretty much common practice." Members know it happens, and even if it's rare it's wrong for a debate to be decided by such methods. Roy basically concedes that strategic voting happens but offers no solution except faith in the moderator, but like my first round pointed out there are many strategic votes that Airmax is powerless to remove. Most users know how to write an RFD that avoids mod removal by now since the standards are so lax. My system mitigates this. Sources:1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...