Debate.org Should Abolish Open Voting in Favor of Judge "Select Winner" Voting

Well, since my opponent seems unable or unwilling to return, all that's really lef tfor me is to refute his arguments and offer the examples I promised.On "Harms"1. "Select Judge" voting is no less susceptible to corruption, so this point is moot, see below.2. a. In order to prove that winner indeed reflects what they should, a detailed RFD is very helpful. The Seven-point-Vote encourages very detailed RFDs, increasing the credibility of the judgement.Here's an example: http://www.debate.org..."2. He attackdc both Mikal's and TUF's integrity -- accusing Mikal of "hand-picking judges" and TUF of votebombing, even though he typed out a three-page RFD. Why isn't anyone responding to how utterly asinine that assertion is?"b. That can happen in "Select Judge" debates, too.3.a. I say there is no reason to believe this, as I can't really follow without an example. I would like to see any proof offered for this.b. Same here. I don't even understand what this means.On INHERENCY:Open voting has long since been the standard on this site. The site has prospered with this style of voting, so it cannot be called "illegitimate" at all.Since the instigator pickes the judges, my opponent fails to show how "Select judge" voting does anything to remedy the problems he sees. Taken from the same context of the above example: http://www.debate.org..."Posted by ESocialBookworm 7 months ago: Why isn't this allowing me to vote? Did you guys choose specific people?Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 7 months ago: Mikal hand-picked his favorite judges."This was a "Select Judge" debate, and it apparently led to 8 pages of aruments in the comments, a lengthy discussion in the forum (see above link) and a member leaving this site in frustration, accusing the selected judges of conspiring and being incompetent.As long as judges can be picked, there is a high risk that the loser will suspect foul play afterwards, causing unrest and dissent on this site. Do we wish every debate to end like this? Spamming the forums, heating up tempers in the debates? No, that would be detrimental to the site."Choosing a judge, or ideally an odd-number panel of judges, is best because the challenger must approve the judges nominated before accepting insuring that both sides respect the expertise and impartiality of the presiding judge(s)."This is faulty on several levels. Since I pointed out that the "Select Judge" option easily leads to dissent, whereas things are relatively peaceful with Open Voting, it can hardly e the best option.Approval of judges requires knowing the judges. This will put new users at a distinct disadvantage, since they can neither really nominate judges for lack of knowledg, nor disapprove of a judge if that said judge has a very high ELO ranking, which makes the judge seem reliable."Advantage 3: Having a pool of good judges who have the option to approve or disapprove a debate might help the website curate better by encouraging the best debates and discouraging trolls and circular debates about that have no real clash."If we allow judges to disapprove a debate, new users will never get a chance to improve. We'd be giving judges way too much power over the content of debates. Power that only belongs with the moderators.For these reasons, I say "Select Judge" voting is a very bad idea.There are further disadvantages that can partly even be derived from this very debate here. I will follow my own list from the earlier round now.Harms 1.a) See the above link, where a user accuses the judges of being friends with the instigator and blames his defeat on that fact.b) The recent election has shown us that we have double users joining for events of personal interest, especially hindering the win of certain people: http://www.debate.org...If judges can volunteer for a debate, that's most likely going to happen, too.4.a) THIS debate, see in the comments and my round 1. The voting system delayed the debate, and most likely those delays made it impossible for my opponent to realize in advance that he wouldn't have time for this debate. I, for one, want to accept a debate and then dive right into it! And isn't that fun what we all want? If we need to wait for several judges to accept before actually starting, most of the fun is already gone.I extend all arguments and turn this over to my opponent for a last chance to turn this around.Thanks all for hanging in with me in this tiring debate.