(Pro)New Voting System Vs (Con)The Previous One

The system in place is (WTA + 7P) > 7P. That is the burden he most uphold. It is an "and/or" situation and stating that having WTA on the site degrades the quality of everything is a bold statement that he has failed to uphold. He has to show that the current system degrades the quality of votes/site so much so that it is better to have only the 7 point system in effect to win this debate.So if he wants to rework the equation we can write it this way (WTA) (7P) > (7P). This would entail you get the effects of both, but both are different and not used in the same debate. This round is entirely for clarification and rebuilding major points previously presented. You can offer rebuttals for clarifications as the rule states, but no new arguments will be presented. CR1) Mitigation of vote bombs/fluff votesThis statement is entirely false. While the new system is still active mitigation means the ability to lessen or decrease the harm of in (x) instance. I am not going to spend a great deal of time refuting this because it should be obvious the statement is wrong. He claims because the 7 point system is still in effect it does not mitigate vote bombing. As I stated mitigation entails the lessening of harm. Having the new system in place will prevent a vote bomb at some point, so it will in fact mitigate damage as far as cheating goesSo set this up as an syllogism[P1] The new system allows for users to chose a WTA option[P2] If any conceivable means of cheating has been prevented by a WTA, it has been mitigated[C] Cheating has been mitigated The question is how much does it mitigate cheating. Well for the contention to hold, it has to mitigate cheating in general which it has. He has not even addressed the major concern, which is how much. The fluff votes generally occur with more well known members. Meaning they will ask friends or people to vote on debates. As I said new users cheating is not really the issue, it is just a lack of knowledge about the site. We can teach new users how to vote at some point, that is not the issue. We can even set an "elo floor", where new users will not be able to vote if they do not understand what quality a vote should be held to (which also mitigates fluff votes). The WTA is always there for members who prefer it and have experienced fluff votes. I mean take for example if you are debating abortion. This is a topic where a lot of members will vote off personal thoughts rather than the material in the debate. This occurs constantly and all the time. I can attest to this in my own debates, and others like thett3 and bluesteel can verify this as well. Having a WTA system prevents the impact of bias votes and fluff votes. Therefore it mitigates cheating and a great deal at that. CR2) weight of votesThis point is mute. As I stated he is still working under the assumption that the new system condones bad grammar and conduct. Every argument is still considered with the new system, and you can still punish (pro) by awarding the debate to con if the conduct is bad enough or if he cheats or trolls etcYou can have a virtual outline in your mind, that you can use to weigh who wins the debate. Meaning if you want to punish pro for bad grammar in the new system, or if his conduct is bad. That can weigh in as a factor to award the debate to con if the arguments are pretty even. The new system still offers the same conditions as the old , but with the impact of mitigating vote bombs and cheating as well. CR3) New system/Old systemAgreed upon/ acknowledged. R1) Failure to mergeBasically my adversary has to provide some sort of evidence to support his conclusion. That by adding the WTA to the 7 point is so bad that it is < 7 point. The statement is that by adding the WTA to the 7 point you are lessening the 7 point so having the 7 point with the WTA is worse than having just the 7 point. There is no evidence to back this up, and seeing how this round is just for clarifications and no new arguments, it will not hold. Granted there is possibly no argument he could present to support this claim. R2) DefaultAgain we can drop this argument. He is stating that having it as default correlates to it being superior. There is no evidence to support this. Meaning that whatever is labeled as default would be superior in every instance. He has to provide evidence to support this stance , and show that some type of possible causation entails superiority which can correlate to the default position on the selection list. Basically he is stating this[P1]Default = superiority[P2]Default = 7P[C] 7P = superior for this statement to be true he must show that premise 1 is true for [c] to be true. He has not accomplished that. R3) The 4-3 win over someone who has more convincing arguments is not likely to be a valid RFD under the newer system.Again he would have to show that this would be any different in the old system. [P1] There are (x) number of 7p debates that exists where a noob can still offer a bad RFD[P2] Noobs have offered bad RFDS on 7p debates[P2] If they can offer a bad RFD on a 7P debate they can offer a bad RFD on a WTA debate[C] Bad votes from noobs does not entail causation to which system is better. This does not show which system is better, it means we need to educate users on how to vote. Bad votes will happen no matter which system is used. In addition to this educating newer voters show that they can still include these categories in their vote. R4) Re (word count, se title in previous round)Again this does not discourage bad grammar or conduct. Both can still be used as weight for your vote in the new system. R5) ReFalseR6) Reagain this is false, he would have to show that the new system has promoted bad RFD from new users. Both systems have bad RFDs from new users. Education is the key, bad votes to not increase with the new system R7) The outline is still in the new system and as my adversary stated is the "default choice", so this can help noobs have an outline.