Debate.org should reform its voting criteria

The resolution states that the voting criteria of DDO should be reformed. It does not state that the point allocation should be adjusted or that votes on this site are often objective. Pro has made few arguments in this round to affirm his resolution. Rebuttals Pro starts off by stating that there are no safeguards to ensure objectivity, and supports this by stating that people vote without even having read the debate. What does this have to do with voting criteria? Pros argument here is against the voters not the system, which is completely irrelevant to this debate. Pro asks: “Why is the first two criteria even included if there are no points awarded for it? ” The point of asking the first two questions (who do you agree with before/after the debate? ) is to separate the concept of who you agree with, from the concept of who made the stronger arguments. I made my point very clear on why this is important in round 2. Pro did not refute my argument but instead seemed to applaud it (on paper). Fortunately for me this is a debate, and is therefore judged on paper. Pro then states: “If you agree with pro BEFORE the debate, but change your mind to agree with CON after the debate, then Con deserves point for swaying the opinion of the voter. Yet this is not the case with this site. ” This is a very illogical statement. There is no possible scenario where a debater can change a voters mind on an issue without making a stronger argument. Sources Pro never argued against my sources contention in round one, and has chosen to bring it up here in round 3. He claims that by having google at his fingertips he can validate any claim being made. First of all fact checking an argument is the responsibility of the debaters not the voters. But more importantly, Pros assertion that valid links do not make an argument any better is blatantly false. An argument supported with facts is clearly better then an argument with no factual support. Pros conclusion Pro now changes the resolution from reforming voting criteria, to reforming the point system. Of course even this argument is deeply flawed. Pro states that you can have the more convincing argument and still lose. This is actually true, and it should be that way. Debating is not about who has the more convincing argument, it is about who makes the more convincing argument. To make the more convincing argument you should be able to not just have it, but also communicate it (grammar), support it with facts (sources), and keep the attention focused on it instead of distracting personal attacks (conduct). The person who does all of this better on balance should get the victory, which is the way the current system works. My Conclusion Pro gave it a good effort but he did not have a rebuttal to any significant argument I made and resorted to changing the criteria of his own debate to keep his arguments alive. His entire case is nothing more then a collection of his personal opinions of what a debate should be with no practical solutions to any of the problems he addressed. Voters do not always follow the voting system when deciding the winner of a debate. In this case the voters are the issue not the system, therefore reforming the system would have no positive effects and take away from what I have established is in fact a just system.