DDO should only have a "more convincing arguments" point

Forfeit. Con drops all my arguments. As agreed, Con cannot type anything in Round 4 except "thanks for the debate. " Just to reiterate: (1) The "sources," and "S&G" points are almost always going to be redundant with the "best argument" point. In nearly all cases, the person with the better arguments will also have better sources, spelling, and grammar. (2) The "source," "S&G," and "conduct" points are not needed. People use good sources because the better the source, the more convincing the argument. Good writers will always have good spelling and grammar, regardless of whether a point is offered. Good debaters will always maintain a general level of courteousness. Competitive high school and college debate prove that you can have good debates without awarding specific points for "S&G," "conduct," and "sources. " (3) To the extent that "sources," "S&G," and "conduct" points are redundant with best argument or are not actually needed, they exist only for strategic voting. Airmax's moderation can only do so much. It is really easy to justify an RFD enough to escape removal by Airmax. (4) Voters that have an implicit bias on the topic or simply want their vote to "count for more" will abuse the point system. According to Airmax himself, abuse of the point system happens *constantly* [in particular the "sources" points]. (5) Even if no one ever voted anything but "100% fairly," it is still unfair that some people's votes count for less. My opinion that a particular side won "arguments" is no less valid than another person's opinion that the other side won both "sources" and "arguments. " Yet in such a case, my vote counts for three-fifths of the other person's vote in determining that actual winner of the debate. I have had *multiple* people complain to me in the past that they thought it was unfair that their votes counted for less [because they voted only "arguments" but other people were voting both "arguments" and "sources" to the other side]. (6) If sources, conduct, and S&G are really important, we can include them as categories that can be awarded, but they simply will not be worth any points. Ultimately, when you say someone "won" the debate, you really mean that the person had the better argument. It's important to remind judges that sources, conduct, and S&G matter and should factor into their consideration of who "did the better debating," but as it stands right now, sources + S&G + conduct is actually worth *more* points than arguments. This makes no sense. (7) Rap debates and other non-traditional debates. The fact that there should only be a single point category is proven for non-traditional debates (like rap, programming,drawing, etc). These are great and unique debates, but the categories make no sense for them. People sometimes vote all 7 points on rap debates or sometimes only 3 (for best argument) because it's not clear that the categories matter in cases like that. In terms of moderation, it makes much more sense to have a single category that determines who wins and who loses. A single category that says, "The better debating was done by _______" erases confusion, the potential for strategic voting, and the unfairness in the current system. It also makes the moderators job easier and ensures better moderation of RFD's. Fundamentally, it is hard to argue with the basic principle of "one person, one vote. " To negate, you would have to believe that it's fair for some people votes to count more than others. Even if you think there is some merit to the current point system, the risk that debates might get slightly worse due to the reduced incentive for S&G, conduct, and sources is completely outweighed by the amount of strategic voting that these point categories allow and the inherent unfairness that some voters get their votes to consistently "count for more. "