Debate.org should change some of the criteria for how a person wins the debate

I have to routes to negating the resolution in my argumentation. First, rebuttals/ defending the Status Quo. P1: S/GSpelling and grammar, as well as realiable sources, are vital to DDO and its debate structure. Also, these elements rarely, if ever, change outcomes of debates. Rather, they serve as tiebreakers. In the example you presented, of both sides being flawless except for one side's grammatical error, this is a legitimate tiebreaker. Everything else was a tie, and therefore, points must be awarded where deserved so as to break the tie. While I will ignore the fact that this scenario is extremely unlikely, I will point out the fact that there has never been a documented occurence of an S/G vote going a certain way due to a typo. I also think that S/G is imperative in online debating, since it is a reading and writing sport, rather than a speaking one. If I am unable to communicate through written word, to the point where my opponent (or the voters) can't understand, I should be penalized. I think that 1 point either way is a fair enough tiebreaker when all else is even. To give it any more weight would be unfair, and to remove it entirely would provide no penalty for any amount of grammatical abuse, and offer no tiebreaker. P2: Reliable sources My opponent tried to use the subjectivity of votes to state that "reliability" of sources is an unfair standard. Someone who trusts NBC might not trust Fox. However, I have not seen this bias shown often. And the DDO community has a very effective system for "countering" what they call "votebombs" (a vote where subjective opinion takes precedent over the debate itself). When you see points given on sources, more often than not they are because A) One side didn't source. (this is important to debate) Or B) One side used blogs or other easily edited sources as evidence. Any news station will be held responsible for what they report. This is not the case with a blogger. So, technically, any established news source should be considered a "reliable" source. Part of argumentation (when it comes to sources) is discrediting your opponent's sources. If this happens, or one side fails to source, then the "reliable sources" option becomes very key to voting. In actual debates, (events such as Team Policy, like I'm a part of) sourcing is key. If one side presents impeccable arguments, but does not source, their arguments could be thrown out entirely! That is why the sources option for voting is great as it is. It provides enough points to make a difference. However, it doesn't equate to the "arguments" option, due to some debates not hinging on sources as much. Secondly, I'd like to provide One argument from Con. Despite the fact that I've already defended the status quo quite thoroughly (in my humble opinion), I will provide one last reason why the resolution is flawed. The resolution states, "Debate. org should change some of the criteria for how a person wins the debate". However, this resolution is clearly flawed in a very specific way! The actor! C1: Debate. org is NOT an effective actor for the resolution. Debate. org is the domain of the company known as "Juggle". Juggle effectively runs the site, and determines and applies all changes to the site. The resolution is not only flawed because it calls for unneeded change! It is flawed because it is asking a website, (the website itself) and not the company, to change the website. Debate. org can't change voting issues, Juggle can. So for the reasons that:-The status quo is preferable to the proposed changeANDDebate.