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

first of all, the format goes as follows: "Who did you agree with before the debate?" "Who did you agree with after the debate? " This doesn't add anything to the debate as no points are given. With the limited character spaces, there's really no time to talk about your thoughts on the debate itself. I noticed that most voters don't even explain their views, they get straight to voting. "Who had better conduct? Spelling and grammar " This should be a standard on all type of writing online. Each debater should already be using the spell check feature by default. I noticed that forfeiting is bad conduct, but that's not the only thing that defines it. Bad conduct is also personal insults, misrepresenting arguments, etc. It's not convenient for there to be a report argument feature but also have conduct as the criteria for bad conduct. Debaters should by default respectfully give their arguments. Debating should strictly focus on logic and empirical evidence as its implied in the voting format. There's alot of complex factors in debating that the point system cannot solve. Most people who come here are unaware of exactly what a debate should consist of and how logic works. I noticed the following mistakes made. Debate.org should be a place where people who join are motivated and disciplined in these areas to become logical thinkers. 1. Poor topics - Things like "Resolved - God is triune" What does resolved mean? I think it's a filler word. The topics should match the subject matter specifically and with clarity. I'll explain more later 2. Definitions - very few people establish strong definitions or any at all. There are no goals being set on who's going to prove what, the desired outcome of the debate, no rules, nothing, so confusion is bound to happen. For example, If you want to talk about the existence of God, but only want to debate him philosophically, you should come up with philosophical terms and state that you will only debate in that field. 3. Burden of proof - Debates should have a burden of proof established 1st round which is something i see lacking. This way, no one can shift the burden of proof unnecessarily. 4. Sources - The voting criteria asks "who used the most reliable sources?" No standard is set on what is reliable. What's reliable for one person may not be reliable for another person. If you have to define what reliability is why have this as part of the criteria? Sources should be accessible and the voters should be able to decide which sources were in great quality and quantity. 5. Arguments - Debates should have arguments that are well formatted with axioms stated, the premises following, and the conclusion reached, not all over the place. Debaters should also demonstrate that they have clearly understood their opponent's arguments. 6. Counter-arguments - Debaters should logically break apart arguments by showing that conclusions are wrong. 7. Exposing logical fallacies - Part of making a good counter-argument is explaining the types of logical fallacies an opponent has. It demonstrates that you as a debater recognize how logic works rather than simply state that something is fallacious with no reasoning to back it up. Conclusion: DDO's voting system should be structured in such a way that critical thinking is essentially in creating a quality vote. The point system is a hindrance as it could be changed to something more effective which requires strict written analysis rather than simply awarding points. If we implemented the criteria i suggested above, we should all improve in debating.