The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old

Thanks for the debate. Before I begin, I want everyone to know that Pro has the BoP – in the event neither system is proven better, I win. Other logical fallacies I’m really quite shocked at how many logical fallacies riddle my opponent’s arguments – how much sense can you be making with this many fallacies? Slippery slope fallacies ~ A1: “Not only can a voter simply express their opinion in their RFD, but taken to it's logical conclusion this argument would lead to a template with hundreds of categories for everything that is important in a debate.” B2: “taken to it's (spelling and grammar) full conclusion this argument would support nearly limitless categories for everything that's important in a debate.” (For both) Just because I’m arguing for the old system’s voting categories being better than the new system, it does not mean that I am arguing for the extreme. Clearly, the old system did not have ‘hundreds’ of categories, and so I am not required to defend that. Strawmans ~ A1: “She argues that a voter cannot express their "true thoughts" on a debate without the categories, but this is just ridiculous.” I argued that, “this competent voter is unable to express his/her true thoughts of the debate in point form”. It’s not just “true thoughts” (i.e. qualitative reason), as my opponent has incorrectly stated. It’s ‘true thoughts in point form’ (i.e. points delegated via true thought). ~ A2: “Zarroette offers no proof whatsoever of widespread voteboming under the new system.” I argued the theoretical likelihood of being able to get away with votebombing, not this. Pro’s case I. One man two votes Voting does not exist in a vacuum – simply giving your vote twice the amount of points of another does not mean that: 1. It is legitimate 2. It will survive Illegitimate votes, under the old system, were not tolerated. The GWL example, wherein he tacked on illegitimate RFDs (as I explained earlier), makes the vote null (and subject for deletion), NOT more valuable than good ones. “Zarroette makes literally no response to the instances of bad voting I performed.” You can vote poorly under EITHER system. It’s just that the old voting system LESSENED the potential for poorer votes, due to its structure. “Remember that I can do the same thing on close and contentious debates and the moderators are not going to stop me.” There is a difference between moderation and the voting system. II. Strategic voting These are the arguments I made against this point: 1. Under the old voting system, strategic voting wasn’t tolerated 2. MODERATION of the old system was wanting, as my opponent showed with Airmax’s policy of allowing votes as long as there was an RFD 3. It’s much harder to detect strategic voting under the new system, because of the sheer vagueness of the voting standard: ‘who do you believe won the debate?’ It’s through having the “toolbox” that votes can be broken down to see if they are legitimate. “…given DDO's small active population 17 is probably a pretty representative sample.” The fact that my opponent thinks this poll is sufficient as evidence is an insult to everyone’s intelligence: 1. It suffers from the small sample-size fallacy (17 debaters, when there are more than 35, 000 debates) 2. People are not bound by anything to be honest with their vote 3. Conversely, if you’re to say that the sample size is just fine, I could flip this and say that during the old system’s time on DDO (many years), only 17 people have involved themselves in strategic voting (remember all the other positives that it brings!) III. Competition and debate “…a simple spelling error would be a violation of the rules under the old policy, but obviously it isn't because I did that very thing twice and my votes still remain in place.” The moderation of illegitimate votes, and the voting system that determines what an illegitimate vote is, are different. This conflation is incorrect. (about debating irl)“…The vast majority of judges are very adept at writing the arguments made down…” Writing down =/= already written down, which is what I said. Neg’s case Tool tips vs. Moderation policy Why are the tool-tips better than ‘who do you think won the debate’? 1. Provides better structure. There are indicators of when to vote on the important aspects of a debate. There are even indicators of when to vote on arguments, which my opponent agreed are the most important aspect of a debate (and the new system lacks). 2. Gives new members an understanding of when to vote. ‘Who do you think won the debate?’ doesn’t even come close to the tool-tips standards, in this regard 3. Gives veteran members more chance to differentiate components of the debate, rather than a ‘winner takes all’ outcome 4. Provides less creative licence to justify what is essentially a vote-bomb. Under the old system, I must justify the voting according to the tool-tips. Under the new system, I can justify however I wish, as long as it’s who I think won “Zarroette made no response to my argument that these guidelines still don't explain *when* to vote.” Wrong. I made it several times. I showed the tool-tip in which it tells you when to vote. I worked through your S&G point of when S&G points should be given, as you refer to in the sentence after the one I’m quoting. “If Pro makes one spelling error and Con makes zero, if I follow the tool tips I should award 33% of the argument value to Con because of one misspelled word in thousands” Having the potential of this extreme (it’s unlikely that both debaters will only make one mistake, altogether, S&G wise) is better than having: 1. Less of an incentive to spell and apply grammar well 2. Having the excessively vague voting standard of ‘who do you believe won this debate?’ – it essentially allows you, under the new system, to justify the vote with whatever you think, as long as it’s why you believe someone won the debate. “moderation policy is all that matters when it comes to the deletion of votes, not the tool tips and she hasn't even explained why these should be binding over the moderators policy.” We’re debating which voting system is better, not whether moderation policy should be binding over voting system rules. “if her system is unworkable without many more moderators we should prefer mine.” Not unworkable, since DDO had it for a long time. Besides, it will be worth the extra moderator or two. Voting complexity It’s not “infinitely harder” to explain the old system (no proof from opponent to the contrary), and that doesn’t mean it’s hard to explain (it’s really quite simple, thanks to the tool-tips). The new system is over-simplified: ‘who do you think won the debate?’ does not pertain to the level of depth required to vote with quality on a debate. Why the increased complexity is good: 1. Allows competent voters the chance to better differentiate the debate 2. Allows newer voters to gain an understanding of how to structure a quality vote 3. Easier to detect fraudulent votes “Zarroette makes no response to my argument that if we follow this argument all the way it advocates a system with hundreds of categories.” Slippery slope fallacy. Fraudulent votes I’ve explained this elsewhere, in terms of old voting rules not allowing this and requiring more complex RFDs. Incentives My opponent has conceded that the voting point allocations of the old system gave points to important components of a debate. If your arguments are better, you won’t lose based on S&G. “Zarroette makes no response to my rebuttal about how the old system encourages debaters to use bad tactics such as source spamming to try to gain points.” It’s not permitted in the old voting rules – this is not encouraged. Bias “Vote Con only if you want your debate to be decided by an RFD like "sources on Con's side aid his argument more." That’s not a legitimate vote, under the old system. Interestingly though, such a vote would be permitted, under the new system. Thank you for reading :)