You should not be given points for using sources on DDO

Pro seems to forget that he has not followed his own debate structure, as he rebutted to my arguments in round 2 as well. If I had followed his debate structure I would've been a whole round behind. It should've gone something like this: R1: I start, which really means I put my main points and justifications. If I "begin my argument", isn't that what I'm doing? R2: Pro puts his main points and justifications. I rebut to these. R3: Pro rebuts to my arguments. I conclude my argument. R4: Pro concludes his argument. I leave my space blank, as according to debate rules. If I had followed debate structure by doing my rebuttals in round 3, I would be one whole round behind, giving my opponent an unfair advantage. I think in this scenario I shouldn't be penalized for this. However, because Pro responded to what was supposed to be my opening argument, apparently, in round 2, when it was supposed to be just main points and justifications, then goes on to say I broke the rules, but he was completely fine makes no sense on Pro's behalf. I do not ask the voters to penalize Pro. I ask the voters note the fault of both parties and keep it in mind whilst voting. Also, I find it extremely important that Pro has dropped ALL FOUR of my reasons presented in Round 1. He does address these in Round 2, but I respond to them, and he does not pursue them further. Now, to the conclusion. Keep in mind, as this is a conclusion, I will not rebut to anything else opponent has said (even though I'm tempted to), rather I will look at his arguments, evaluate them, and then make a conclusion based off of this. I should state to everyone what my opponent seems to be arguing for vs what I am arguing for. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm 99% sure I'm not: Opponent: You should not be given points for sources because sources are not relevant to every argument. They are important, but they should be banded together with "more convincing arguments. " Me: Sources are not used in every argument, but they are vital enough to be a separate section apart from arguments. They should still count as their own separate point. Just because sources are not used in all debates does NOT mean that they are not important enough to warrant their own point. Tying them into arguments would leave too many points into one category, and, as I said before, be extremely similar to the already existing “Select Winner” system. The reason the two styles exist is for a variety of voting choices, one is for the overall content of the debate, and the other is for separate factors that tie into why a person won. Also, they do nothing to serve for a more “convincing argument”, so that argument falls flat. Another thing that I don’t like about my opponent’s arguments is his constant belittling of voters’ ability, even going as far to say that I “concede” by presenting the idea of judges, which help for more fair voting when it comes to all topics. He constantly states how voters will vote for one person because they provide one source such as a definition and the other doesn’t, and the like. As I’ve stated in my R2, if you do not trust random people with little or no debate experience to adequately vote on a debate, set an ELO limit. I don’t understand how this is a concession because it doesn’t provide a solution to Pro’s issue. It just makes it so that you will receive quality votes and voters will truly understand how little significance a definition source really is. Also, they are far more likely to look at and weigh sources, which is really what we’re discussing right now. Opponent commonly addresses the idea of “If one person provides more sources, they win source points” which is false if both parties provide sources of quality value. It’s not about the quantity of the sources, it’s more so the quality that awards. If someone provides 5 quality sources VS someone provides two, sources will be left blank as both parties have provided quality sources. In the debates I’ve seen and been in, if both parties use sources then sources is often left in the middle. Then opponent will continue to ask “what if one person uses a source and another doesn’t? ” If it’s just a definition or some term, it is not enough to warrant source points alone. However, in a debate that would require sources, one person cites one valid source (apart from a definition or term) and the other doesn’t, points SHOULD go to the first person. I have presented valid reasons why source points should still be awarded separately and not bound together another category. Ultimately, my opponent’s goal was to show that source points should not be used in the 7 point system. Sources are not used in all debates, and this is ultimately what opponent is attacking to prove his point. I feel that despite this, sources are important enough to warrant their own category, as in the debates they ARE in, they’re so important that it doesn’t make sense to get rid of them entirely. While philosophy and opinion debates may not have sources, just because of some debates the source points should not be removed. If it’s a matter of voter integrity, as I stated before, raise the ELO limit if you care too much about this. Notice that this is overall an opinion argument, yet you have cited sources. More debates use sources than you probably like to believe as they are necessary extensions of our original arguments as well as the backbone behind others. Binding them in with “Quality arguments” would leave 5 points toward one topic alone, which would then render the question “Why do both the 7 point and select winner systems exist? ” 7 point offers more variety in voting while “select winner” offers more of what opponent seems to be heading towards. It’s an already intact system opponent can simply utilize, and if you dissect opponent’s argument, there isn’t really much he’s going on. His two main reasons of voter integrity and not all debates using them can easily be solved easily: first by the higher ELO limits and the “select winner” system, and the latter with leaving source points blank. There is no need to reform the system. It is not perfect already due to the naturally subjective nature of voters, but putting up ELO limits is the closest you can get to fairness, and fairness is what opponent is seeking.