Debate.org should not have only conduct-votes

Liberty of ChoiceCon starts off by stating Liberty, the right of choice to be lazy are important values to this debate. If that is the case why moderate votes at all, or require people to explain anything about their vote? Under this logic I can cast a vote for all 7 poins in favor of whoever I want, because my right to laziness is important. Con's value of liberty doesn't produce anything beneficial in this case. Con says there is nothing negative or wrong about forfeit votes, which comepletely ignores my examples in round 1 where I literally showed "good" debates that were effected because of forfeit only votes. Con then brings up the constitution's first ammendment. This point is entirely moot. Constitutional standards shouldn't apply to a privately owned debating website. That aside, he doesn't explain in any specific way how what he posted from the constitution is relevant to the debate. Is the right to freedom of speech in votes like "Pro FF'ed" really deserving of being outweighed by infringing on users who had good debates by not reading them?Con mentions the harm principal.... What? He says that a forfeit only vote doesn't harm others. But my entire case is built on the harms of forfeit voting, Con is actually making an argument for me. Con then crafts a slippery slope argument not rooted anywhere in realism, saying that by removing people's right to abusively vote a debate without reading, we are transcending into slavery. Con literally put this in his own argument. So there you go, apparently expecting people to have standards to vote well isn't enough when removing votes. We will go as far as to enslave people for unfair voting. Yep, that's exactly what I am advocating.... We have the right of choice. We have the right to do what we want. Vote for Con just for this.It's a good thing the U.S. Government doesn't operate on this logic. If the right for people to do what they wanted meant crime like rape, robbery, and murder were allowed, Con's ideas of freedom would very easily back-fire. Less people will vote Con mentions how people like dsjpk will vote less if this plan is pushed through. That is exactly what we should want. Dsjpk is probably one of the worst voters on the website, and abusively uses his privilege to vote in the wrong way all the time. If stopping votebombers like dsjpk is what this means, we should be glad that this plan will be implemented. There are voters out there who would rather spend time reading quality debates and voting fairly, these are the ones who should be voting. Less votes is a good thing, if it means less bad votes. This policy change doesn't effect voters who spend an hour reading a full debate and judging it fairly.On to my arguments.The seven point systemCon drops this argument, because he simply doesn't understand it. It's baffling to me how de doesn't understand it, but that's where we are at. It's not off topic at all, this is building my case for the flaws in the 7 point system (the only system that can really be abused by FF only voters). In this point I took examples of how S/G and source only points aren't allowed under current voting guidelines, yet conduct votes are. Con drops all of this because he doesn't grasp the concept of the argument somehow. A dropped point nonetheless.Cross applying logic All Con says here is that I am arguing for his side without explaining this in the slightest. Again this demonstrates that he doesn't understand the argument. He then wierdly links to something (3) but he has no source listed under number 3. I have utterly no clue what he is doing. This argument was about how if we are going to hold to a standard on one thing under a solid form of logic, that logic should be cross applied to the other thing as well. Specifically, voting on debates on one standard alone.This argument was dropped by Con, please extend.Single standard voting 2 out of the 3 debates Pro gave, there was argument points. This shows that the voters do care about argument votes, but then they are just lazy.No this shows that there ar some genuine voters out there, and more lazy ones that have no place to be voting. Pro is literally saying that he advocates for lazy votes, that they are more important than serious votes.Whiteflame never said or removed any FF votes unless there was no FF, or if was to the other side. You are making an argument from the status qou, and this is thus irrelevant. Whiteflame himself never said he agreed with this policy, and airmax doesn't either. That's why the policy is under review to change this. Arguing what is, doesn't mean you are arguing what should be.Forfeits effecting a debateAll voters vote. It might be of bias, but it does nothing to voting. On what reasoning is this assertion justified? Con also literally just said that bias votes do nothing to voting. I continue to be baffled by the lack of intelligent argumentation from Con.My opponent gives an example of the God Exists debate. But, there are no FF votes in that, and it says not to. You again completely mis-understood the entire premise behind that point. The point is that a single forfeit doesn't negatively effect the quality of the debate in all circumstances. Con drops this point, let's extend it.Conclusion Con dropped every major point, mis-understanding every aspect of my argument. We can't even call this a debate if Con refuses to actually debate. His arguments were very poorly written and don't tackle the issue at hand. Multiple times in this debate Con has advocated for lazy votes, bias votes, and votes from voters who clearly demonstrate bad voting behaviors. At this point, the debate has gotten us nowhere, and if someone actually intelligent would like to re-match me on this topic, I invite you to do so. Because this debate is an absolute disaster.