Voting on Debate.org Should Be One Point Per Vote

I'll start this debate by clarifying the resolution. Currently, Debate.org employs a Seven-Point voting system dispersed across six voting questions. The resolution is that this system should be replaced with a One-Point voting system with only one voting question. In other words, instead of voting in the areas of agreement, conduct, grammar, etc., voters would simply choose a winner. I am for this resolution. The current voting system is admiral in its attempt to make the results of a debate more meaningful. Indeed, few people including myself would argue against the merits of judging a debater on his/her use of good conduct, superior writing abilities, logical argumentation, and use of resources. While good in theory, the practical use of this voting system has revealed several flaws. Voters can be generally classified into three categories: the thoughtful voter, the casual voter, and the dishonest voter. Thoughtful voters independently assess the winner in each of the six voting categories. They often award only partial points to the victor given that many debates may result in a tie in the areas of grammar and conduct. Casual voters simply award all six voting categories to the person they deemed the winner. Casual voters still read the debate and determine the winner, but they award all seven points as though it were a football score. Dishonest voters are the ones that vote without reading and assessing the content. They vote according to their ideologies or friendships. The current voting system is rendered meaningless given the differences in voting styles. In other words, no judgment can be made about the results of a debate since the voting cannot be consistently determined. If all voters were thoughtful voters, then the system would be perfect as it would adhere to the ideology. On the other hand, if all voters were casual voters, then the system would still be meaningful since all scores would simply be a factor of seven. But so long as there is an indeterminable mix of the two, voting becomes an arbitrary game. If the voting system is changed to a single vote of Pro/Tie/Con, then thoughtful, casual, and dishonest voters balance each other out. Thus, a casual vote is just as meaningful as a thoughtful vote. Better yet, the dishonest vote is of equal value as well. This leads me to the great evil of this site: vote bombing. Given the current system, a vote bomber is more powerful than a thoughtful voter. Statistically, it is expected that a thoughtful voter will usually award less than seven points to one side. Let's assume on average that a thoughtful voter awards 5 points to the winner since most debaters tend to equal each other in conduct and grammar. In this scenario, a vote bomber is worth 1.4 thoughtful voters. Now, a vote bomber with five accounts can award 35 points to the loser of a debate, requiring 7 thoughtful voters to make up the spread. If, however, all voters could award only one point, then only 5 thoughtful voters are needed to counteract the vote bomber. A voting system in which a voter simply chooses the winner will also make the debates much closer matches. There would be more debates in which the winner is decided by only a couple votes. It's also easier to determine the real outcome of the debate. A score of 13 to 14 shows that given many votes, the debate is dead heat, whereas in the current voting system, it simply means one voter was stingy with the grammar vote (possibly). My proposed system still gives thoughtful voters freedom to explain their votes and consider grammar, conduct, etc. in their decision. In this way, grammar is assessed within the debate as a whole, as it is meant to be, instead of being an extra point to by arbitrarily given or withheld by casual or dishonest voters. The current system is open to too much abuse, which can be resolved in my proposed system. Personally, I like the idea behind the current system and would have no need to offer this alternative if it could be executed in practice. Sadly, the idea does not align with reality, so it's time to count the losses and make a change. Vote in favor--be it thoughtfully or casually--of a one-point voting system by voting for Pro.