Debate.org should reform its voting criteria

In round one I posted a link that outlines the voting criteria on DDO and encouraged my opponent to read it. Judging by his round two response it does not appear he has done so. I will post it again: (1) http://www.debate.org... Arguments Pro states that the most important part of deciding any debate is the arguments. I agree and so does DDO. This is why the question of most convincing arguments is worth more points then the other questions. Grammar When evaluating the grammar aspect of voting Pro seems to agree that grammar in terms of understanding the argument should be considered. He states that a not understandable argument would not be considered convincing, which is true. But what about a difficult to understand argument? This is the point where grammar comes in. Many voters can understand an argument because they have knowledge of the subject or because they put in the time needed to understand what was being written. If a debater is not clear and his readers barely understand what he is saying then his arguments would still stand, but he did not communicate them effectively. This is an obvious aspect of debating that should be judged. Conduct Pro states that there is no clear definition of conduct in voting. The following is the explanation provided in the article I referenced in round one and again above(1): Conduct: “Which debater, on balance, was more composed, and used fewer or no personal attacks against their opponent? Improper conduct includes personal insults, profanities, and bad sportsmanlike behavior.” It is true that many members do not vote on conduct based on this definition but this is no fault of DDO’s voting criteria. Who do you agree with? Finally Pro states that the question of who a voter agrees with should be considered in certain circumstances. The whole point of judging a debate is to decide who made the stronger arguments, which in most cases has nothing to do with who the voters agree with in the end. This is because people will agree or disagree for a number of different reasons. Take this debate for example. The very first comment left on this debate reads: "I agree with Pro for now, but for different reasons.” If I do not address these “different reasons” this member may not agree with me at the end of this debate. But I can’t address his reasons if I do not know what they are. As a debater my responsibility is to refute the arguments made by my opponent, not the voters. In one debate in particular (I will not post because I do not want to sound like I’m whining) I made an argument in round one that showed why my interpretation of the resolution was valid. My opponent conceded my validity argument by not answering to it. Yet I had two voters vote against me because they did not agree with my interpretation of the resolution. I was fully prepared to defend my validity argument but my opponent did not challenge it. The voters by disagreeing with me gave my opponent points for an argument he never made or defended. Voters will rarely if ever change their opinions because of reading a debate. This should not be a burden placed on any debater. The last piece of evidence I will give to support this fact is this forum post: http://www.debate.org... In this post the topic asks if anyone has ever changed their mind as the result of a debate. Many members made it clear that they have either never changed their minds because of one or rarely ever do, which just goes to show how little this has to do with who made the stronger argument.