THBT Debate.org should pay fifteen qualified judges to decide wins/losses instead of using votes

Sorry, I forgot to define something- the said "wins/losses" is in terms of debates in Debate.org. Now let's start: Imagine a guy called Jack debating on this site for the first time. He puts his entire effort into winning by splashing all of his energy over the keyboard, furiously smashing the words on the keyboard to fend off his opponent"s argument, which was lame and extremely ridiculous. Now if a professional debater walked in on him and saw what he was doing, he would be convinced by 99% that Jack would win. However, the next day, the votes came in and to his surprise, he didn"t win. Jack"s opponent called his great quantity friends to vote for him. Jack on the other hand, does not have that many friends, as he"s an introvert. Another reason why he lost is because his opponent used phrases and terms which people thought were "fun" and not knowing the content of the debate, but judging entirely from the content of his "fun" attitude instead, they voted for him. How will he feel? He"ll feel disgusted because of the ridiculousness of the way those on Debate.org voted. And he won"t ever want to even think of logging in to the site to debate ever again. My question today is this: is it the number of friends you have and the terms you use to make you seem fun that defines your wins and losses in a debate, and your debating skill? Because if the voting of sides by ordinary people keeps going on in Debate.org, it seems that the answer for Debate.org is "yes", when the answer is an obvious "no". Arguments: #1 One who has no experience and judges a debate will have many flaws in comparison to one who has judged debates before and is experienced in the matter. There are three things to consider when judging a debater: matter, which is what the debater has said, method, which is the structure the debater"s arguments were put in, and manner, which is how the debater put his or her points across (whether in a funny way or in the use of big words). Unfortunately, many people only judge a debate in terms of manner, ignoring method and matter. This is especially true for those who have never debated before, let alone watched on. This is especially true for those who are attracted by big words, who see fifty bombastic words in a single sentence of the debater, and say to themselves, "he"s a good one, alright." This is especially true, in other words, for people who don"t even have rough idea of how to judge a debate. And while I don"t deny there are good debaters who can vote wisely in Debate.org, I have to tell you that there are people out there who don"t know how to debate, let along judge a debate. This has to stop. It isn"t fair to let random people judge debates because they don"t know how to judge debates in the first place. And the best way to stop this, while allowing people to continue debating on Debate.org, is to hire a team of fifteen judges (a judge per page full of debates) to decide wins and losses for Debate.org debates. Since these judges have judged in other debates before, they will have all the experience they need to judge these online debates. Furthermore, this will benefit Debate.org in the long run, because it will improve debaters on Debate.org to be better because these judges can give constructive criticism to them as well as wisely pick the winner (I will talk about the "long run" effects in more elaboration in my next post). #2 Status quo"s way of determining wins and losses repels good debaters What will happen if we don"t get good judges to come in soon? This unfair system of letting people vote instead of using judges, people who have absolutely no experience in debating and people who vote for their friends just because they are friends (I will talk about this in my next post as well), will definitely destroy Debate.org in the sense that it will lose many good debaters. Why? When these debaters come into realization that there are times when votes are placed because of friendship and humour and not because of how well the debaters are in terms of matter and method, these said debaters will surely never come back to the site in disgust of the system. #3 The enormous amount of good it will bring is better than the little bit of bad You know, when you think about it, the only thing in Debate.org"s way now is money. However, this is a very small issue, which can be solved with methods, which I will now suggest. These methods are: a)Make a membership program, where people can pay to get special privileges if they are members. b)Debate.org could also get money in through sponsorship. c)Debate.org could also help advertise things. d)Debate.org could host competitions, which people pay to join. See, there are so many ways to overcome this harm, which is the only big harm in the way of bringing judges in to judge. However, there are not this many methods when it comes to the unfairness of letting random strangers judge a debate- the only way is to get judges in. Therefore, I proudly propose.