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

I am not sure about this BoP issue but I think we pretty much agree on it... I will not be rebutting it because I agree with Pro and don't think this hampers my case. I am at a loss as to how on Earth the new system mitigates vote bombs. Just because 'subtle vote bombing' cannot physically occur doesn't mean that you can't post the exact same RFD are all 7 points to the other guy anyway. In fact this guarantees that all vote-bombs will be 7 points instead of any less amount and the subtly will be in the RFD as opposed to the votes themselves. It hampers absolutely nothing, it merely amplifies the extremity of system-abuse to 7 points minimum. A 7-point vote-bomb justified by mentioning that one side wont because o grammar is actually far worse than giving one extra point to a side that can be individually reported or revoked at a later stage with mod intervention. This has absolutely no basis whatsoever. The WTA forces vote-bombs to be 7 points, it doesn't 'display' them any better since the RFD will be the same as if it were the 1 point vote-bomb you described in round 1. Additionally the fact that the default system is the default position means that the majority of debates (since noobs won't think to set it to WTA) will be 7P and thus be vulnerable to 'subtle vote bomb' attack which i still think is far less severe than a 7-point attack on a WTA system which has a wishy-washy RFD to make it 'subtle' anyway. Cheating isn't mitigated, it's only amplified to 7-point scales. There is absolutely no mitigation whatsoever, this is a complete lie on Pro's part and I hoped they'd just concede it. My opponent attempts to amend the system by creating something called an 'elo floor' and training new members in this manner. This is not only a new point to raise in the last round but is also an amendment which only further proves that the new system needs severe amendment in the first place. He again baselessly asserts that it prevents bias voting. the 'fluff' in fluff voting would be the RFD as opposed to the vote distribution, that means the skewness would me magnified to 7-points while the ability to carry out fluff votes has actually been made easier as it is now one click only as opposed to two or more. After this, he states that people can attest that fluff-voting happens in the 7P system. Not only does the new system incorporate the 7P system but the alternative option has magnified the damage to a 7-point extremity. The only difference is that the deception is in the RFD, not the physical vote itself. It's hampered absolutely nothing and has only made it worse! Bluesteel and thett3 haven't seen this new system enough because, simply put, it's new and most people using it are restricting it to members of an elo that indicates previous exposure to 7P. What is the point of having a system that forces you to think in the exact same framework that 7P does but forces you to give all the point that you would have evenly distributed between the people all to one side? What is the single possible benefit? None that I can think of and none that you've supplied so far. I have no idea what the R1 is referring to and I am just going to negate that on grounds of irrelevance and incoherence. I never once said that you are 'lessening the 7P' by adding WTA, I said that WTA begin an option has corrupted voting far worse than what a 7P-only system would have done in this amount of time being implemented. I don't think that Pro understands that if the option isn't neither of the two, it is automatically in favor of one of the two. The designers of the system made it default knowing that noobs, who don't know the settings well enough, will only pick what they are forced to pick and ignore the rest to begin a debate as soon as possible. The fact that it is not forcing the noobs to consciously pick 7P over WTA indicates that it is automatically favoring 7P. This is very simple to understand and is irrefutable. Additionally, if 7P is supposedly worse than WTA then the fact that the default isn't WTA, or a neutral option, only furthermore proves that Pro's assertion of 7P's inferiority insinuates that malign 7P the default option is an inherent flaw within the new system. My opponent claims that bad votes will happen no matter what system is used. Would you rather have a vote of 7 points or 3? Exactly. Irrefutable. Don't pretend that the 3 is easier to hide, or even a 4 is, because if the RFD is insufficient that's a reportable offense no matter what system is in place. The only question is do we want a 7 point bomb or a less point bomb and I think we all know the answer to that one. The concept of education under the new system is not supported by anything the new system has put in place. the old system forced people to structure their votes correctly, some people abused this but at least they rarely did it to a 7-point degree. Also my point about equally good debaters being pressured to have a win or loss as opposed to the tie they rightfully deserve is undisputed. I conclude that the new system is both objectively and subjectively maladaptive in comparison tot he old one. Thank you for reading, I hope you vote-bomb 7 points in the right direction.