My main argument will be that Style should be worth just as much as Content, unlike current DART format.
Recall that NSDA defines style as: When points are awarded for style, judges are focused on the delivery of the speech. The debater must speak clearly, effectively, and use an appropriate rate of speech. Additionally, proper use of hand gestures, facial expressions, and overall body language are awarded appropriately for the style category.
Since Gestures/facial/body language is not visible on DART, we will just consider the tone and expression of the text -- in specific, spelling grammar and the way they address the opponent.
Let us consider the extreme situation where I lose Conduct and even Spelling and Grammar. I misspell every other word so much so you can just barely read it through the garbled text, and not only so, I insult my opponent endlessly, emotionally attacking them to bully them and make them give up with intimidation.
Do you genuinely think this is a good debate or acceptable? If they felt disheartened and frustrated, the emotional obstacles could potentially stop them from debating. The "Content" portion of Debate Art is so powerful you wouldn't even need to win sources -- 3 points argument means you could sacrifice all matter of respect, leaning purely on how savage you can speak and what tricks you have up your sleeve. Indeed, if Con can argue that DART should allow me to completely misspell my argument and throw countless damaging insults and distract from the debate, then Con would win the debate. Even if Con argues most persons are respectful and correctly spell their arguments, I could still arrange my arguments in a haphazard way that makes it difficult for Con to parse, and still win if my arguments seem more convincing overall. A good layout makes the debate easier to read and vote upon. Due to the limited population of DART users, wouldn't it be best of both worlds if we focused on the way the speech is delivered?
My secondary argument will be Strategy. Currently, DART commits no points towards this. However, this is clearly very important, and hidden in most debates. For example, if we had a Gun control debate regarding US policy, perhaps the main arguments would be second amendment, the effectiveness of gun control, and the impacts on the civilians. However, most people might get absorbed in just arguing who is winning in the argument, rather than tell us how important the argument actually is. In any country but US, second amendment would not even be in consideration. Hence the Debaters would have to consider how heavily the Victims consider the Right to Bear Arms. By focusing on whether an argument is relevant is or not, the Strategy point could give an interesting twist to normal debates.
Notice how I spent most of my characters on the most important arguments, regarding that Content is just as important as Style. This reflects the style choice with Strategy worth 20%. If Strategy does not exist, then it would be harder for debaters to naturally ask, is this issue current? Is this issue important? Strategy improves your overall debating quality in a way that DART doesn't offer. We could argue back and forth about a minor issue and it might be left in the dust, while the main issue remains at large. This way, Strategy forces us to argue about the things that actually matter, instead of wasting time on small things.
Only two days remain for any voting.
Comparing an IRL debate format with one solely designed for text-based discussion is like comparing a top fuel dragster with an endurance hypercar. Which one is better? IDK!
Due to the vicious style developed here, I have been barred to enter any in-school or national debate tournaments until my graduation by the school.
"The judges are looking solely for argumentation in this portion and are instructed to penalize weak arguments even if the opposition does not point them out."
I have problems with this specifically.
Thoughts?