(Pro)New Voting System Vs (Con)The Previous One

I think I am only supposed to give contentions this round so I will withhold my rebuttals until round 3. I am a very disorganized individual so I struggle to compartmentalize contentions independently of one another. What you are going to find is that all the contentions link to one another in a very chaotic ecosystem, so to speak. Here are my contentions: I shall put the (c)oncise (c)ontention as CC then the (e)xtensive (c)ontentions as EC. The number of the CC corresponds to that of the EC. C1: The failure to merge is mathematically foolish. C2: Under the new system, the default voting system is the original/older one. C3: The 4-3 win over someone who has more convincing arguments is not likely to be a valid RFD under the newer system. C4: The winner-takes-all system discourages people to bother being polite or grammatically coherent. C5: The use of sources is essential to debates and should be encouraged in and of itself. C6: The new system is detrimental to RFD writing of newer users. C7: The new system essentially requires exposure the older system in order to cope with voting in the newer one. EC1 Please observe the following list: (1) Winner-Takes-All(WTA) > 7-Point(7P). (2) WTA = 7P (3) WTA < 7P (4) (WTA + 7P) > 7P Whether 1, 2 or 3 are true, 4 is definitely true if one of those 3 are true. So, whether the WTA system is superior to the 7P is not important if one understands that the system of having them both together is definitely correct. The problem is that the new system is not actually equation 4. Equation 4 would be having no option of what voting system was in place and giving all the power to the voter to choose which of the two they wish to use as their style of voting. Intead of equation 4, the new system is forcing you to pick between variables WTA and 7P without informing you of whether 1, 2 or 3 is true. It is leaving it up to you to make the decision. Contention 2 will now expand on this dilemma to justify why the new system insinuated 3 to be true as opposed to 1 and 2 and thus would lead one to wonder why there isn't either a system of giving voters the option to vote WTA or 7P as opposed to forcing the debate initiator to dictate tot he voters which of the two they must use. EC2 Based on EC1, you would think that if equation 4 was not in place and someone is not allowed to let voters use both systems then they'd at least have the default on a 'select voting system' option as opposed to automatically placing it on the older system. Instead, the 7P (older) system is the one that is the default option. This is why relationship 3 [WTA < 7P] far more likely to be true than 1 or 2. Thus, this begins leaning one to realize that, even under the new system, the older system is revered as superior to the WTA option that is its inferior rival at present. EC3 What I am saying is this: Under the 7P system, if someone had more convincing arguments than their opponent but had used more reliable sources for their information, had better spelling and grammar and had better conduct they'd have won 4-3 over their opponent. Instead, the new system would allow an individual to be as rude and incoherent as they like, even lie about statistics and still win the debate if they happened to be convincing enough due to a logical fallacy on their opponent's part. This is where EC4 comes in. EC4 EC3 will lead to almost all lazy instigators (who already have an elo advantage) to pick WTA system as a safety net for sloppiness on their part. In the same way that slurring your speech would lose you a debate in real life, spelling wrong and being grammatically incorrect should at least contribute to a higher chance of you losing in a text-based debate. This is not at all made apparent to the voter who will probably think 'bless him, he's foreign' or 'that dud ei angry but smart' and in their RFD they probably won't even feel the need to address the rudeness or grammatical error as they'll feel racist or stupid to bother doing so. This will mean that being rude and sloppy in typing is not at all penalized as long as your arguments are good enough. Imagine how that will look to prospective DDOers yet-to-be who look at the website and think 'Whoa... That's a headache to read but people like him win... I think I should just watch some porn and forget I ever saw this website." and that is the doom that the WTA system will lead DDO to for its lack of penalization for bad conduct and grammar. EC5 Sources legitimate data and statistics. If any statistic or 'fact' is disputed in debates it will often be ignored with an "agree to disagree" mentality in many intermediate debaters who do not see any incentive to use sources as they've worked out the WTA system encourages people to consider the reliability of them far less than the 7P system does. People should be encouraged to battle on facts and statistics by the reliability of their source, not by the way of their deceitful tongue. That is filthy debating and not what this website should be encouraging. EC6 There is no EC6, it is just a statement in itself. C6/EC6 is the basis on which EC7 is based. EC7 There is no way on Earth you can expect noob voters, who have done 3 quick debates that essentially either ended in FF or minimalistic debating depth, to have a clue how to judge a debate that my very opponent, Mikal, can enters in such as: (http://bit.ly...). It is only because he has Elo restrictions that noobs are not voting with a skewed view of how to do so. How is a noob voter supposed to know to look for conduct, reliability of sources and spelling and grammar? They wouldn't even bother considering it, nor mentioning it in their RFD to help poorer debaters in this area improve. the 7P system offers sufficient deterrence to poor conduct, spelling and grammar and source reliability and is far superior to the WTA system in every single way that is necessary to nurture a healthy, civil debating community.