Vote moderation standards are an overall benefit to the site

Different StrokesWe have different motives for debating. Some of us want high quality debates with only the highest quality voters. That's not what I want. I want lots of readers. I want people to enjoy reading my debates. Some members debate to persuade others to their point of view. They think debate can change the world. Those people would benefit from having more people, analyze and read their debates. Pro admits that most of the debates are short and very informal. Certainly these people are not concerned with the quality of votes, and given that the site is for profit, their presence and ability to click ads makes them just as valuable as Tuf. people are more likely to read a debate if they know they can vote on it. This helps me get the attention I crave, it allows users who want to change the world the ability to reach more people, and most importantly it gives each debate more page views allowing Juggle to make more ad revenue. More ad revenue is good, it keeps the site running. There is no reason to value the needs of the good debaters over the poor debaters. Each user is equally as valuable, and the noobs outnumber us Tuf.Quality vs QuantityTuf's whole case rests on this presupposition that quality material should be the only thing or the most prevalent thing on this site. The problem with presuppositions is that they aren't defended. We are just expected to accept them. I've shown why the number of readers of a debate matters, as well as why high activity level matter. We know that the people on the front page of the leaderboard are not the only people with a stake in this site. We know the site makes more money with more page views, and more activity. This allows Juggle to pay for the upkeep of the site, and these things are essential to give the people on the leaderboard a place to debate. What we haven't been told is why we should abandon everything for the sake of quality.2 Minute WarningOkay I have 20 minutes to complete this now because I am a huge procastinator, but my case is clear. My opponent's case by his own admission has not increased the amount of quality vote, merely the proportion. If vote moderation does not increase the number of high quality votes we shouldn't be doing it. Peer pressure and love of debate is what causes high quality votes, the moderation only gets rid of the worst votes. By the way if we look at the debate he mentions, whether the worst votes are included or not the same person won. The bad votes did not influence the outcome of the debate at all. Typically the bad votes do exactly that, they cancel each other out on both sides and the good voters overwhelmingly agree most of the time and have the most control over who wins the debate. I don't advocate for no modding of votes as displayed in the mentioned debate, but we can see that it was self policed, tha modding was not even neccesary because Counter vote bombs removed many of the bad votes. My opponent claims many debates years back recieved 0 quality votes, but I have a debate with Danielle in the voting period with Danielle which has very few days left that has had no feedback. This is two high ELO debaters, debating a subject that rarely ever gets debated. It should be getting tons of attention, but it is ignored. This is a debate better than most of the ones in the Hall of fame, but will end with no votes because of these mod practices. I used to do debates with a 10 day voting period and get a ton of votes, now I may have to do 30 day periods to get a few votes. I noticed many debaters have been forced to go to 30 day periods. Also some people are bad at voting, nothing will make a 12 year old good at it, and these policies alienate the most common users, the people who just lack enough sense to vote as well as bladerunner, but enjoy using the site and make it profitable for Juggle