Debate.org should award points to a debater when... (Too long, details below)

My opponent's arguments are in three contentions, although I will be showing how all the fluff must be taken off and he only has two. Contention 1 and contention 2 are the same. The only difference is the title. I will address them together. Since contention 1 is better outlined, I will address it. Contention 1. I. This system is not at all based on who has the best argument. It is based on what convinced the voter. Best argument is for the debater who had a strong argument, whether or not the debater was able to convince the voter. For example, lives saved is a better argument than money saved. It doesn't mean the voter was actually convinced because of lives saved, it just means he acknowledges it's a good argument. You can see this even further when you look at the votes. Many votes show the Pro, for example, with better arguments. But the checkbox for Con is checked when it comes to who the voter agrees with. (Just a random example). Therefore, my system is not based on best argument, but rather by whether or not the voter was convinced. II. My opponent has provided no evidence of the amount of times certain voting issues are misused. He merely claims that "best argument" is least abused. We need to see some kind of verification of that from him. Also, it is illogical that a certain checkbox would be "abused" more than the other. If someone wanted to vote bomb, would they not abuse them all? My opponent most likely means misjudged, not abused. A person who is trying to abuse the system would abuse them all, not just one. Lastly, why would this point by abused MORE than any of the current ones? It's actually logical that it would be abused less, since it's very balanced. If the voter is half persuaded, then it only awards 1 point. If he changed opinion completely, it's 2 points. If there is no change of opinion (most of the time this will be the case), then it stays the same. I'd like to repeat that. Most of the time no extra points will be rewarded for this since most people won't change their completel mindset because of a few arguments. It's also harder to say that you changed your mind about an issue than to say one person had better conduct, for example. We need to see some kind of logical reasoning that this will be "abused" more than other voting issues. Contention 2. "Dishonest voters, which unfortunately are prevalent" Evidence? How does MrCarroll know that? You have to verify your account with a mobile phone to vote. It's hard to abuse the system. "Currently, there are only three points that are often abused" 1. What makes one point more likely to be "abused" than another point? Again, I believe my opponent is referring to "misjudged", not abused. 2. Once again, how do you know that it's abused? "That would mean 5 out of 9 points would potentially be misused. In other words, more than half of the points could be dishonestly given. This would mean "vote bombers" and the like could be even more dishonest then they already are. " This argument is on the verge of silliness. It is clearly an exaggeration. As I stated above, most of the time this won't even reward a point since most people don't change their minds on issues. Best argument is as prone to abuse as any other argument. There is no change of balance here. Plus, again, no substantiation on how my opponent knows exactly what is abused. Contention 3. This argument is a fallacy. It's basically saying that since x hasn't be done, it shouldn't be done. That's like saying that because Congress hasn't past a beneficial treaty, it must not be beneficial and we shouldn't pass it. We're not arguing whether debate. org has added this system. We're arguing whether they should. This argument is invalid. The second part of the argument states that this system is not necessary and increases dishonesty. 1. I've already shown how it doesn't increase dishonesty, it increases competition and the quality of competition. 2. We're not arguing whether it's necessary, once again. We're arguing whether it's beneficial, or whether we should do it. My own points. .. Advanced feedback. Because this would be adding another way to be better or worse than your opponent, it gives advanced feedback. Wouldn't you love to receive a vote that shows every single point you won or lost on, gives you points for very specific details, and such? It increases the educational experience. Recap My opponent has provided a logical fallacy for contention 3, plus two points that are practically the same and are not at all substantiated. Although it is compelling to believe that it would create more abuse and it sounds bad, I would argue that abuse is abuse and it will be there at all times. Debate. org is to have fun and learn, not to win. If the system gets abused, oh well. This point is non-unique. The system can be abused right now, and with this feature it can still be abused. On the other hand, you'll be getting better feedback every round. Competition will also be at a higher level. It's clearly better to provide points for altered opinion. It also adds potential for more "controversial" votes. What do I mean by this? I mean that both sides could get several points and it will be closer. It's just overall more educational, breeds better competition, and is more exciting. Lastly, I would like to point out that my opponent completely dropped two points. "If you are able to actually change someone's opinion on a topic as a result of good argumentation, you definitely deserve points. It also creates initiative to debate well and increases the quality of debate. " My opponent did not even mention them. When you drop a point, it means you concede it and it also means you can't argue it in later speeches. With 72 hours to respond, you definitely have enough time to respond to each and every point. Therefore my opponent conceded these points and they are considered truth. On these points alone I believe a vote for Pro is justified because it proves that points should be awarded for altered opinion. If my opponent brings up these points, I would ask that you mark him down on conduct since that is violating the rules of debate. Thank you, please vote for increased competition, increased excitement, and increased education.