Conduct Should Be Considered When Voting On Debates On Debate.org

Con has not contested that quality debates, objective voters, and a safe environment, as presented in my arguments, are all desirable elements of DDO. What Con contests is that these elements should be maintained through voting. Con's argument, in summary, is that poor conduct should be punished by disqualification. Rebuttals 1. Conduct Votes = Ad Hominem? Con claims that casting a point in favor of the debater who had better conduct is committing an ad hominem fallacy. This would be true if arguments points were awarded for better conduct, but it is false in the case of DDO's seven-point system. Arguments and Conduct are separate votes with separate values. A voter may award a point to one debater for better conduct, while still awarding 3 points to the other debater for better arguments. Arguments are not judged by conduct. Conduct is judged by conduct. There is no ad hominem fallacy here. One may not like that conduct, spelling and grammar, and sources are part of the total score, but that does not change the fact that arguments are in their own category, requiring their own thorough RFD, eliminating the chance that someone will award arguments on the basis of conduct and get away with it. 2. Disqualification = Ad Hominem Con argues that poor conduct should be punished with disqualification prior to the voting period. He states, "Yes, once conduct is removed from the voting picture because disqualifications for poor conduct could be done prior to voting...debaters can focus on making a solid argument instead of worrying about saying please and thank you, encouraging better arguments and fewer logical fallacies." First, I'm curious how disqualification will help a debater stop worrying about "saying please and thank you." While under the current system a debater may lose a few points to poor conduct but still win the debate if her arguments are superior to her opponent's, under Con's proposed system the debater would suffer a complete loss. It is more likely that such a consequence would increase debater's wariness about the details of their conduct. Second, Con spends much of his round decrying conduct votes as ad hominem, all the while supporting a system that would integrate ad hominem into the very matrix of DDO. Con says, "I have a dream...that one day debaters of all types and abilities...will not be judged by their debating behavior, but by the content of their positions...that one day debaters who have not met their burden of proof shall not win a debate for simply being nice or appropriate...that one day on every debate platform etiquette infractions will never outweigh solid logic." Then, Con turns around and says, "If DDO really values conduct...they should employ a disqualification for conduct prior to voting," and, "...poor conduct should be a disqualification before voting," and, "Therefore, we should disqualify bad conduct and bad sportsmanship before voting..." and, "...we should disqualify the violators before the voting period and remove the poor conduct filled debate." So, Con claims that he wishes for debaters to be judged for their arguments and not for their conduct, then proposes and promotes a system of disqualification that would not only judge a debater's conduct, but would do so without consideration for the value of the debater's arguments. Whereas the current seven-point system allows for conduct and arguments to be judged separately, removing the possibility of conduct-driven ad hominem in votes, Con's system of disqualification for conduct without regard for arguments is the epitome of the type of ad hominem he claims to oppose. Summary So far, Con's only argument against conduct votes has been that they create the potential for ad hominem and a disregard for arguments. Not only is he mistaken, due to the separate voting categories and RFD's for Conduct and Arguments, but his alternative of disqualification would judge conduct over arguments by its very nature. The current system remains superior, encouraging good conduct and maintaining quality while still allowing a well-crafted argument to shine through.And now, boobs.