The "Conduct" Voting Category Should be Removed or Replaced

============================================================================== An inventive to avoid petty insults, and focus on debate ============================================================================== Ladies and gentleman, my opponent doesn't have a problem with conduct being employed so that two people won't feel inclined to talk bad about each others' mommas or the characteristics of each others' craniums. Rather, his problem rest on those who view conduct in terms of those who make use of "bad words" or have "bad attitudes". However, what my opponent does not understand is that this objection serves to be a two edged sword for him. In other words, let us take into account that there are people who view "convincing arguments" to mean the individual who actually "convinced" just as there are people who view "convincing arguments" to mean the side whom they believe provided the better argument. Heck, there are even those who view convincing arguments as "the user who I like more" or "the one user who posted the most text." Do these different interpretations honestly warrant removal and/or replacement of the "convincing argument" category? Heavens no. People are expected to have different interpretations of "conduct" just as people are expected to have different interpretations of "convincing." The most debaters can (and should do) is know their audiences (which is what lawyers, members of the senate and presidential candidates do) so that they may know how to reason and dictate in a way that is appealing to them. I After all, is it not the audience whom we debaters are serving when it comes to this voting system? Sure, there may be some interpretations which we may consider outrageous, but this is the art of persuasion which we are dealing with. If you feel you cannot persuade an individual through appealing to their beliefs, simply persuade them to your own. In terms of there simply being a new voting option (clarity), as I've implied above, this would be flaccid and ineffective at best. Just as there are different interpretations of "conduct", there are different interpretations of clarity as well. There are different interpretations for all terms. The most a debater can do is get to know their audience (which [by participating enough on this website] is not difficult to do). =========================================================================== Don't need to remove it anyway =========================================================================== #1. My opponent request to know of what purpose there would be to place vote options that have no effect on who won the debate. Answer: The purpose is quite simple. #1. It allows users to voice their opinions officially. Whether or not conduct ought to be valued here, it is valued mostly every place else. Just as is the case in mostly every place else, voters will be able inform the debater of whether or not they liked the way they behaved during the debate. Of course, why should the debater care? This is simple. #2. Because it is valued in mostly every other arena, debaters ought to be concerned with it. Just because bad/good conduct may no longer influence the voter turnouts on debate.org, it doesn't mean the same will occur elsewhere. If debaters are well practiced in having good conduct, then debating in other arenas should not be much of a problem. Ergo, debaters can practice their conduct skills here and be rated by the voters so their performance so that they can be better equipped when debating in other arenas. Those who intend to have bad conduct no matter what arena they are in (and likely risk failing to come off as persuasive or successfully in other arenas) can debate here without caring for conduct to their heart's content. #2. To further negotiate with my opponent while upholding my side of the resolution, I argue that rather than remove or replace conduct, the webmaster could simply add in some information on the side of the page that explains "conduct" in more detail. Through being defined in a way at which my opponent favors (a way that explicitly leaves out "curse words" and other forms of "bad conduct" which my opponent does not deem bad), this would appease my opponent and win me the debate at the same time. And that'll do it for now. :D