This is taken from how some live debates are handled, specifically from an article Tejretics shared.
The way I envision it working is as follows:
Judges cast ballots only reflecting the strength of their opinion before and after the debate (plus commentary). Moving from agreed/disagreed to neutral (or neutral to agreed/disagreed) would be worth 1 point, and from agreed to disagreed (and vice versa) would be worth 3.
I view this as something informal with only minimal moderation (such as a voter repeatedly gaming the system; like a known pro-lifer insisting they agreed with mandatory abortion before each debate to give undue points to their friends).
Due to the risk of no voters beginning in the position of agreed to certain claims, no ELO impact.
Note: Meta data could be collected from having strongly agreed/disagreed, but I would not grant extra points. While extra points would certainly help identify cheaters, people already complain about such too much on categorical voting.
