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

"The same problem happens with open 7 point voting. You are correct, using the "Select winner" form of debating should be used rather than the 7-point system as you should be focused on crafted arguments based on your judgement.", this isn't true either; in essence you've clearly abandoned the route altogether because in a few of my debates with "select winner" some of the commentary bluntly stated that they had to pick one but would not have given all 7 points to a given party. This matters. The restrictive nature of "A or B" doesn't help your cause, it weakens it even more, because you've all but abandoned the original intention of making the system and it's criteria more fair whether through aversion (privatization) or limitation (select winner) to simply ease the system as you see it. You're depriving people of their possibly gained points and also tilting the debates far more ( for instance with 4 voters a 11 > 7 is possible saying one person got an argument point and then got two conduct points and two source points and the other got 3 argument votes and the same, etc. versus the 21 > 7 which is skewed magnificently ) simply killing the point of assessment to begin with. The Article itself does exactly what you say but it is exactly how I say as well; it's an attempt to help, that is to get you from level 1 to level 2, but it is not an attempt to teach which is where the contention lies. Why should burden of proof ( a basic ) be mentioned? That's like looking at a multiplication table and expecting to see an explanation of addition. These tips here are just that, tips, and they are not attempting to teach you how to debate but actually pointing out really common issues ( such as spelling and citations and poor debate topics due to ambiguity ) almost anywhere you go whether it is a debate team or just a local coffee shop. A lot of people don't make proper (or any) citations for their points, they misspell (and at times this results in an Equivocation) or ignore certain distinct rules of language (because Logic is literally the study of the value of statements), and often like here we see ambiguity in your suggested seven points (which is the route I chose in an attempt to disassemble them ) where the topic itself runs two instead of one dueling outcomes. I now have two burdens of proof (because you made two claims and I accepted the terms, A) needs change, B) needs removal) while you only have to defend / assert one at a time. Does the article tell you the definition of fallacy? No. Should it? No. But we both agree it's just an appeal to the general public. I've no idea how many people read it. 1. This only generates controversy in the judging sector and still doesn't actually validate itself in the 7-pt system. One core thing you cannot do when defending a value is just write the value off as ignored; without assuming that the voter will actually vote on the matter what is the point of the criteria? Again this is avoiding the issue (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...) by simply giving counteroptions instead of discussing the validity of the standard itself. 3. Yet people do simply disagree. Persuasion is the name of the game here so when you talk about voting you need to be very careful to not incorporate options that basically support the bias of persuasion. It's why it's so important to know how BoP works, what it does, and what it really means. A lot of people don't actually (though they attempt or simply make an illusion that looks like an attempt) support their claims in any meaningful way. Take for instance your previous statement that's actually a fallacy; to the untrained eye that doesn't look wrong, and should it? No. It looks like you gave a valid excuse by simply offering an alternative (though that's not valid because you need to actually address the problem) as well as an ambiguous write-off ("further discussion") instead of validation. This is very, very common. Basically you just did it. 4. Your version of the 7-pt system is not sufficient in my opinion. You've not provided a strong case in my opinion as to why the removal of the system should be done. You've constantly alluded to alternatives and did not validate or strongly propose a reason to take on the removal of the system. In short there's no reason, as you've yet to show one, to change or remove the system. From this, it is not a matter of who wins or loses, but instead a matter of who makes the most sense. Regardless of the scores of this debate (I hope you win, of course) all that matters is at the end of the day I'm both not convinced and do not feel compelled to see your vantage point. I've come away with one question: "What is the point of a proposal without a plan?" When you've a plan I'll gladly do this again with you for a better system. Until then.