Debate.org should award points to a debater when... (Too long, details below)

Thank you for responding. I. "In your example, why on earth would anyone change their position from Pro or even neutral to Con when Pro made better arguments. This makes no sense. " Opinion is not necessarily based on everything the person wrote. "One may agree with Con at the end of the debate even if he put up poor arguments, but to switch positions makes no sense. " My opponent just conceded that the voter is not likely to change positions even if one team had better arguments. Let's tie in what he conceded to my response to the first quote. The logic behind keeping your position even if one team had a better argument is that you yourself have a bias and some arguments that you have in your mind. In a sense, your brain is constantly debating what the team whose opinion is opposite of yours is stating. That's why you might switch positions: you bring up your own mental arguments that were sparked by Con and subconsciously or consciously debate with Pro's arguments. You realize your last stance was not necessarily wise. So you change positions. Yes, it's hard to get there with logic, but since my opponent conceded that you might stay on the same side even if the opposing side makes better arguments, it follows. II. My opponent tried to prove this point logically, but it did not fly. Let's look at one of my previous debates. . http://www.debate.org... In the votes, you see that ALL of the voters stated that I had better arguments, but they tied everything else. Take another one. . http://www.debate.org... The single voter gave me best argument, but tied everything else. Last one. . http://www.debate.org... Voted for my opponent, tied everything else. Second voter voted for me and added the conduct point to me as well. (My opponent used ridiculous semantics in that round. ) That is all my wins, and they all either only gave me best argument or in one case best argument and best conduct. Ah, I just googled something related to debate and found this randomly: . http://www.debate.org... Look at the votes. Every single one is only judged on best argument, NONE on conduct, grammar, etc. There are over 7 votes on there. Just another example. Lastly, with my own logic. .. Just because one team made better arguments doesn't mean the voter is going to root for that team. I rarely see "vote bombs" that are like this. Contention 3. My opponent made no attempt to refute this. He just worded it differently. My argument still stands. He ignored my argument and I quote it: This argument is a fallacy. It's basically saying that since x hasn't be done, it shouldn't be done. That's like saying that because Congress hasn't past a beneficial treaty, it must not be beneficial and we shouldn't pass it. We're not arguing whether debate. org has added this system. We're arguing whether they should. This argument is invalid. Contention 3 can be thrown in the trash where all fallacies go. I would also say that he may not respond to this since it was basically dropped (restating does not equal refuting), but since my opponent clearly has no background in competitive debate, imposing the stricter rules would be unfair to Con. So therefore I'll give him the chance to respond to it. "Advanced feedback This is irrelevant since we already have feedback in this area. There are just no points given. Adding points to these already established votes will not increase the educational experience. No one will receive any better feedback then anyone already receives. " I will admit, yes, that it won't be significant. But when there are points awarded for this, the voters will pay more attention to it. They will actually consider deeply whether they're convinced or not. They will probably also add that into their comment. Yes, it's insignificant. But yes, it is an advantage. "Debate. org is to have fun and learn, not to win. " Maybe I'm unusually competitive, but I want to win every debate. Pro even stresses competition, which brings up a point: "Competition will also be at a higher level. " I don't believe you ever gave a reason that competition would be increased. Either way, you're contradicting yourself. I understand how my opponent might believe I contradicted myself. I should not have used the word "competition". What I meant by "Competition will also be at a higher level" is that the quality of debate will be higher. Whenever the quality of debate is higher, education gleaned from the debate is also higher. "The reason I ignored Pro's two "points" was because I felt they were not adequately explained, and I figured we would get to these later on. I will admit that I forgot to say anything about the first point at least. " Advice for next time: do not ignore. Briefly mention them and say "I did not understand these". Chances are, if you did not understand it, the voter didn't understand it either. "Still, Pro was not clear on these rules of debate. I have no education on debating, and you may be right on these rules. I would like to know where these rules could be found. " I apologize for not being clear about these rules, I just assumed you knew some of the general debate "things". Ask any competitive debater: especially college, and you will get the same answer. I do policy debate and dropped points are a big deal. In parliamentary (usually college), it's an even bigger deal. For next time I will mention that it is policy rules. "I would also state that the whole debate is centered on the second point regarding the quality of debate. I have been arguing this the entire time. " My opponent not once has even mentioned quality of debate. Also, abusive voting has nothing to do with the quality of debate. No, my opponent has not been addressing this point. "Lastly, you never explained how competition would be increased and this is one of your main points. In fact the only point you discussed was increased feedback. You still have yet to explain increased excitement and competition. " Basically competition would be increased because debaters would now also be trying to think up more possible arguments that the voters will like and hopefully bend opinions for. Higher quality and greater quantity of points is likely to appear. Increased excitement: I already explained this, but I'll do it again. Because the points would be closer (you might get 3 points for best argument and then the opposing team get 2 for change of opinion), it would increase the voting period excitement. Also, of course, since the quality and education of debate is increased, excitement is naturally increased as well. "I conclude that the current system needs not be changed, That was contention 3. which I showed was a fallacy. the new system would have negative consequences, I took out my opponent's "abuse" point with evidence from four debates: my three wins and one randomly selected. I can show more if needed. and the new system would have no significant benefits. " Yes it would, because of 1. Increased excitement. 2. Quality of debate (dropped by my opponent) 3. Education 4. You get points you deserve. (completely dropped by my opponent) 5. Advanced feedback I believe that on point 4 alone we should reject my opponent's stance and choose mine. But there are four more.