Debate.org should award points to a debater when... (Too long, details below)

For simplicity sake I will accept Contention 1 and 2 being combined. C1(C2). I. This system IS in fact based on who has the best argument. Just having common sense, we may conclude that if a person believed Con, for example, had the best argument, then he would not give opinion points to Pro. They may not be completely intertwined with each other. One of the debaters just might get a few extra points as a consequence of having the better argument. In your example, why on earth would anyone change their position from Pro or even neutral to Con when Pro made better arguments. This makes no sense. One may agree with Con at the end of the debate even if he put up poor arguments, but to switch positions makes no sense. II. While I cannot back this claim with statistics, I can give a logical reason. If someone reads a debate and is convinced by Pro, then the person might give Pro the better argument. Often however, a character will take the rest of the points and also give them to Pro even if neither Pro nor Con had any sources or grammatical errors, especially if that character is biased. You can see this by looking at debates with many votes and neither side having sources or grammatical errors. These characters do this, I presume, to give the Pro the maximum amount of points so Pro might win. Typically, the "best argument" vote is not as misused. It is the other votes that people just throw in there without consideration. I don't believe your points would be misused MORE then some of the others, but there is no reason that it won't be abused like the other votes are sometimes misused. "Most of the time no extra points will be rewarded for this since most people won't change their completel mindset because of a few arguments." I bet they will. If they lie about half of the votes, why not claim that you had your mind changed even if you didn't? For example, watch people voting on this debate give you the spelling and grammar vote, even though you have multiple spelling errors. "It's hard to abuse the system." It is actually very easy. Someone can just give one of the debaters the grammar and spelling, conduct, or sources vote for the heck of it. No one makes a big deal about it, but lets say people start giving out these potential 2 extra points every time. That could cause problems. I'm not saying the votes are drastically abused, I mean that points are quietly and dishonestly given many times, or maybe as you say, "misjudged." The current system is structured for honesty, and good judgment, but your system may introduce a bad type of controversy. C3. Basically, I was saying there's not much of a reason that I can see of us adding this point system. The site has not given any points to the "agreed with" or opinion votes, I assume because they figured it was unnecessary. Let us then move on to Pro's arguments for the system, or why they would be more beneficial because this is what C3 deals with. Advanced feedback This is irrelevant since we already have feedback in this area. There are just no points given. Adding points to these already established votes will not increase the educational experience. No one will receive any better feedback then anyone already receives. "Debate.org is to have fun and learn, not to win." Maybe I'm unusually competitive, but I want to win every debate. Pro even stresses competition, which brings up a point: "Competition will also be at a higher level. " I don't believe you ever gave a reason that competition would be increased. Either way, you're contradicting yourself. "If you are able to actually change someone's opinion on a topic as a result of good argumentation, you definitely deserve points. It also creates initiative to debate well and increases the quality of debate." "If my opponent brings up these points... [he] is violating the rules of debate." The reason I ignored Pro's two "points" was because I felt they were not adequately explained, and I figured we would get to these later on. I will admit that I forgot to say anything about the first point at least. Still, Pro was not clear on these rules of debate. I have no education on debating, and you may be right on these rules. I would like to know where these rules could be found. I would like to then request that Pro would explain the logic in Pro's first point. If the "rules of debate" require me to concede this point then I will do that instead. I would also state that the whole debate is centered on the second point regarding the quality of debate. I have been arguing this the entire time. Lastly, you never explained how competition would be increased and this is one of your main points. In fact the only point you discussed was increased feedback. You still have yet to explain increased excitement and competition. I conclude that the current system needs not be changed, the new system would have negative consequences, and the new system would have no significant benefits.