The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old

Thanks for the debate. =Aff case=I. One man two votesZarroette makes no attempt to mitigate the impact of disparate voting power between members. Her only response was taken out in my last round--what's important are votes values in relation to each other, not their nominal value. I'll just extend this point all the way across and urge an affirmative ballot, the practical result of the old system is to make bad votes more valuable than good ones. DDO cannot have a system that gives GWL twice the power of whiteflame. Zarroette makes literally no response to the instances of bad voting I performed. Unless you think my votes against Mikal were justified, vote Pro. Remember that I can do the same thing on close and contentious debates and the moderators are not going to stop me. Any system that allows someone a legitimate vote without reading the debate is a system we should reject out of hand. Her only response that sort of attacks this point is the one on sample size. The problem with her argument here is that I'm not making sweeping generalized claims like x% of votes are fraudulent, I'm giving specific case studies of voting gone wrong under the old system. Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence, under Zarroettes case we have no evidence of any harms stemming from the new system. II. Strategic voting This point should be viewed as dropped and therefore conceded. This is a crushing blow for Con, as it takes out her argument about me not providing enough evidence by establishing a logical framework that indicates strategic voting is inevitable under the old system. Ideological voters are going to try to award as many points as they can, and under the old system they are handed a toolbox to use to increase their voting share. I'm not sure what else to say here except to heavily encourage judges to reread my second contention and to not allow Zarroette any rebuttal to it in the last round as I can't respond. All of Zarroettes qualms about subjectivity are magnified under the old system because of the vast amounts of discretion voters are given. Zarroette's only response to my poll is that there are more than 17 debaters, but given DDO's small active population 17 is probably a pretty representative sample. Even if it isn't, I have 17 people who were harmed by the old system, Zarroette has 0 harmed under the new. At this point you can already vote Pro, as I gain the advantage of wiping out a huge subset of ideological voting that is impossible to extinguish in any categorical system. III. Competition and debate Zarroette drops that it's absurd the old system assigns a majority of the ballot value to points that aren't argued for in the debate. Her only response is that voting on a simple spelling error would be a violation of the rules under the old policy, but obviously it isn't because I did that very thing twice and my votes still remain in place. She also argues that we should reject the voting system used in every single debate league ever in favor of Phil's because the arguments aren't written down for the judge in a real debate, except they are. It's called flowing, the vast majority of judges are very adept at writing the arguments made down and it isn't as if the arguments are only heard once--the important ones are emphasized by the debaters again and again. Keep in mind as well that Zarroette never proved that "complexity" is a good thing nor that complexity has declined under the new system. As with my previous points, I don't really know what else to say here. At this point there's literally no way to vote Con because the majority of my case has survived the round completely unscathed. =Neg case= Tool tips vs. Moderation policyIn order to circumvent my arguments about poor votes slipping through under the old system, Zarroette tries to argue that we should look to the tool-tips on the side of the ballot as the voting policy, not the kinds of votes the mods allow. I think this is where she is staking her entire hopes to winning the debate, but this is flawed for four reasons: First, Zarroette made no response to my argument that these guidelines still don't explain *when* to vote. She asserts that awarding the S&G point because someone used the wrong "your" would be a fraudulent vote but the tool tips don't say that. Quite the contrary, they heavily imply that the judge is to try their best to fill out the entire ballot. The tool-tips say "on balance". If Pro makes one spelling error and Con makes zero, if I follow the tool tips I should award 33% of the argument value to Con because of one misspelled word in thousands, which even Zarroette admits is ridiculous. Secondly, even if Zarroette carries this point, she still loses because we should look to realism instead of idealism when trying to determine which system is best. At the end of the day, moderation policy is all that matters when it comes to the deletion of votes, not the tool tips and she hasn't even explained why these should be binding over the moderators policy. She argues that maybe there aren't enough mods--this is a turnable argument. Juggle is not going to grant anyone else mod power, at least not for a while thus if her system is unworkable without many more moderators we should prefer mine. Thirdly, the tool-tips encourage a bad voting paradigm. Zarroettes only response to this argument is that it's an appeal to popularity, but she fails to understand that things are often popular for a reason. Someone following the tool-tips and voting on a minor spelling error would have their vote meet hostility because trying to fill out the entire ballot is a *bad* paradigm. Fourth, there's no evidence that voting quality has decreased under the new system so she loses her offense. Thus the tool-tips should be ignored. Voting complexityZarroette puts herself in a double bind by asking me to prove that it's harder to explain the old system to a new voter while simultaneously arguing that the old system is better due to it's complexity. Zarroette makes no response to my argument that if we follow this argument all the way it advocates a system with hundreds of categories. Remember, either these things are important in a debate or they are not. If they are. people have the incentive to do them anyway due to wanting to win the ballot. Fraudulent votesZarroette has failed to give a single example of a bad vote under the new system, and now it's too late for her to do so. Zarroette has no answer to my response that under the old system a bad vote can be worth two or more good votes. Even if fraud was easier under the new system (it isn't), it's less potent. Zarroette keeps saying that we should assume that people vote poorly because the new system only asks who won, but that's literally the same thing the old one does except the old one gives poor voters more power. Vote Pro. IncentivesZarroette makes no response to the massive double bind she's put herself in. I argue that the categories on the old system, while important in a debate, are overemphasised to an absurd degree in the old system. Zarroette argues that these things are important in a debate, and that's why without having points for them no one will do them properly despite having every incentive to try and pick up the ballot. I think the flaw in this argument speaks for itself. Recall as well that Zarroette has given literally no evidence of any depreciation of debate quality under the old system and at this point it's too late for her to do so. Zarroette makes no response to my rebuttal about how the old system encourages debaters to use bad tactics such as source spamming to try to gain points. BiasIf bias was really so widespread and easy under the new system, Zarroette should've had some evidence of this. As it is, my harms greatly outweigh. Her vagueness disadvantage is nonunique.