DDO voting system is not fair

First of all, I would like to congratulate Pro on catching my slip stating "the sole purpose", I meant to write "one". However, I would like to point out that pointing out fallacies in my opening statement does not reinforce his argument. In fact it weakens it. My opening statement was to back up the statement that there should be a voting system, not that the DDO system was not fair. This view is shared by my opponent. His proposal to improving the "fairness" of the DDO voting system was not to eliminate the voting system altogether, but to " [assign] 5 judges to vote from the pool of judges, so every debate gets 5 voters that are non-biased". Con argues that having three debates does not protect the integrity of the vote. However, statistics show other. On the leadership dashboard, there are 18, 921 debaters. But by the 62nd page, you can see that the majority of debaters displayed have less than 3 debates in total. By the 100th page, you can barely see any debaters with a debate count of three or more. There are 30 debaters on each page. There are about 3000 debaters that can vote out of the 18, 921 debaters. This rule has been successfully in eliminating random voters, so we can consider Pro"s fifth point void. http://www.debate.org... Pro"s fourth point somewhat contradicts with his other points. Setting a high elo can ensure the integrity of the debate, prevent vote bombs, winning by "getting a ton of friends to vote for you", and prevent random people voting. Pro"s first point, "Not everybody can vote. DDO has a system where you have to give out a cell phone number in order to be able to vote. Not everybody has a cell phone." This is faintly ridiculously. Even Americans that are in the federal level of "poverty" have cell phones. Even if some of the DDO debaters cannot vote, this rate would be quite low. As I pointed out in my last round, there isn"t a system in this world that is completely inclusive. http://www.cnsnews.com... If "pro had better grammar" then pro had better grammar. This is completely objective and not subjective. "Pro had better argument" really isn"t a "real looking reason", as you didn"t give a reason (By my understanding, in the voting system, the voter gets to bubble in which side he/she though had the better argument, then fill in the reason). Even though voters may give "pro had better argument" as a reason, pro hasn"t given any viable alternative for the voting system to make it "fairer". Vote bombs will also occur in any voting system. Getting friends to vote for you is also part of any voting system. I doubt Barack Obama"s friend voted for Mitt Romney in the presidential election. I have looked up the debates of the best debaters (by elo ranking, refer the top link). These debaters give excellent arguments. The overall tendency is that the more you debate and the better you debate, the higher your ranking. Thus the DDO system seems to be working. Although pro never directly stated "we are a bunch of high school students waiting to get evaluated on our world issues assignment", pro proposed method of evaluating debates is remarkably similar to how high school debate competitions are run. The ad hominem statement, "but my opponent seems to be very insecure when it comes to that", is irrelevant to this debate, unsupported, and slightly insulting.