DDO's "7 point system " needs to be changed or removed

Con brings up a fair point. However, I will present a few solutions. There's not many people on DDO who are experienced in certain subjects such as the Bible for example. How do we eliminate biased voters? I say judge voting is the best option. Here's an example of a debate in which the 7 point system posed a huge problem (1). Both sides presented equally valid arguments for why the debate wasn't structured well even if it was for different reasons. The main problem is that the point system doesn't explain how to use logic let alone present an argument. In the DDO article by Nate Simmons titled " tips for a better debate " (2) no where is burden of proof mentioned, no tips are given to evaluate arguments, there's no organization presented on how arguments should be formatted. The article advises us to use verified sources, but who determines their reliability when the strategies in a logical debate is to discredit your opponent's sources? It advises us to check the reliability of our evidence, but evidence can be disproven by two ways: 1) A debate where an opponent presents stronger evidence exposing weak evidence 2) Debaters research the credibility of their evidence and concede when it's verified to be unreliable Either way, you still are required to do some research on the topic at hand. I know of only a few members who unbiasedly evaluate debates based on arguments and evidence: Mishapqueen, Jellon, Shadowkingstudios, bladerunner060, and a few others. Only trust those who are qualified to judge debates fairly. The 7 point system uses vague terms that we can simply come up with a biased vote that answers the questions and get away with it. I agree with you on conduct. I could come to terms with language. Rebuttals : 1. The topics you pick should have a burden of proof, an objective of how the debate shall be held, and clear definitions. If i pick to debate on the morality of God, but I'm taking about disproving his existence then it's inconsistent with the burden of proof. It's better to reject those debates until consistency can be met. 2. I agree, however in some cases, it's not always applicable. For example, in Philosophy, you can't just take a definition out of a dictionary and expect to make an effective argument. Philosophy uses several techniques to reduce vagueness found in words in order to arrive at logical truths which cannot be resolved by a dictionary alone (3). 3. Judges should be able to demonstrate knowledge of burden of proof as well as debaters. I mean that a burden of proof must be stated in order for debaters to have a discussion: "Once participants in discourse establish common assumptions, the mechanism of burden of proof helps to ensure that all parties contribute productively, using relevant arguments." (4) 4. Judges should not give the victory over to a debater simply because he/she presented more evidence. If a debater can discredit their sources, that gives them an upper hand. Even if someone presents biased information, if the other debater fails to expose that then it doesn't count against them. A debate should focus on how well a debater can create arguments using facts and evidence, not simply present them. 7. Judges should also be able to demonstrate knowledge that they understand how fallacies work as well as the debaters. Everyone should be on the same level. Conclusion : the 7 point voting system has ambiguous terms and should be removed or accommodated for professional debates. A lot of bias can be introduced by vague questions such as "Who made the most convincing arguments?" The 7 point system fails to provide relevant questions for a debate based on logic and evidence. Sources: 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://www.debate.org... 3. http://www.philosophypages.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...