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

1. The bias of the voter is what matters. Furthermore "post-closing" arguments as a part of the DDO system would get out of hand. In a debate I had my opponent didn't adequately prove themselves correct from a logical standpoint and got sources that proved them wrong. They are still winning. How does that work? One of the votes argues that the topic is self-evident (which has nothing to do with either of the arguments, it's straight bias) and the other proposes a discourse, but there's no way to respond to that discourse, however the decision itself if it were discussed would be a prolonged (almost secondary) debate. So it would be essentially challenging (and persuading) people against their own reasoning whatever it may be. There is absolutely no way to create a fair point system without knowing who is voting and there is no way to create a sensible post closing without what could be considered a prolonged appeal process. 2. Conduct should be judge in accordance to, just like with bias, the voter. You can't create "hard criteria" for conduct because it's ambiguous as is however that is what makes it important to begin with. The number of people you "woo" with basic courtesy the better and because it's a competitive point itself it means everyone either strives to present a professional and clean presentation. In many cases it's fine but there are some where conduct falters whether it be dishonesty or disrespect or breaking the rules. 3. What is Logic but language? The difference between "All people are ugly", "Some people are ugly", "Most people are ugly", and "Few people are ugly" is massive, all in one word, but this is invisible to most. The construction of an argument is imperative and that means that language and it's utilization must be absolutely precise. While the standards here are lax in a real debate you are actually judged on how you articulate whatever you say particularly because one slip or false word and it's over. Now "spelling and grammar" as shown above and in the previous point are very noteworthy in logical discourse and communication in general. For instance the way I judge this matter is simple: If I have to work to read your argument you lose that point. Also, the reason there is a point for it is you're right, you're expected to use proper language, grammar, syntax, etc. however most people don't. Now I want to address your criteria and it's flaws: 1. You can't judge based on the topic, because the other person willfully accepted, so it faults against both of them. This encourages bias in favor of the accepting party. 2. You can't judge well based on definitions particularly because if they are presented in the opening they must be worked under and if they are presented throughout they can be challenged but beyond that if legitimately sourced they are fair. If illegitimate then it can easily be argued that it is dishonest and poor argumentation or poor conduct, or both in some cases. 3. Burden of Proof does not work the way anyone thinks it does. There is no such thing as an "established" burden of proof; if you make a claim you have burden of proof for it ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... ), it is that simple (http://rationalwiki.org...), and where this myth of an established BoP (http://en.wikipedia.org...) came from is just beyond me because it's common knowledge. The idea that BoP can "rest" on someone means that only one person can make conclusive assertions which makes no sense. Considering the nature of everyone's collective failure to know how it actually works this would be a breeding ground for ignorance and bias. 4. Sources: Poor sourcing is poor argumentation. Poor sourcing is poor conduct. It is frivolous to attempt to expound on that and actually give points partially because it's actually not wholly tangible. For instance if a person gets a source no one likes (i.e. Fox News) that's known for heavy bias but does indeed act as proof for their claim do we hold our external knowledge against them? Yes. This is another breeding ground for bias, esp. political or personal bias, because Huffington Post has just as many who ascribe as who dissent. It sounds good on paper but the fact of the matter is that bias in sources and external knowledge of that bias is going to riddle this concept with holes. Obviously arguments are agreed upon. 6. Counter arguments are "arguments" or extensions of the main concept. There is no sound reason to separate the two as it's continued communication. That's basically again giving bias against whoever goes second or whoever has to post a rebuttal first. 7. Intangible. Too many people are ignorant for it to work. For instance you just made one about Burden of Proof. There is absolutely nothing that substantiates the idea you proposed but you didn't know better and half of the people who would read this would go "What? No. That's crazy!" and will CONTINUE to believe in a "set burden of proof" which makes absolutely no sense. It sounds good on paper but you would need debates that are 20 rounds long in order to do this without laying down some basic framework like a judge to actually make those calls so it would need to be a real-time system (not this back and forth asynchronous communication) just like you would need a real-time referee in any given game. That's exactly why real debates have active judges; they listen specifically for this. The problem here is also that not everyone is reasonable; I've debated more than a few people who would not yield to their own fallacies or faulty logic essentially making things up or arguing empty points and when called on it would just deflect arguing that their opponent was incapable of winning so they were blowing a false while (false accusation, another fallacy, under "dishonesty" or "lying") arguing so that they could continue to argue. Sadly if the person is persuasive enough it works. Your criteria would require extreme refinement in order to be viable.