Platform development

A judge can lie and say they are unbiased when in-fact they are emotionally (implicitly) predisposed to one position (and or participant) over the other.  Have you ever encountered a truly "unbiased" judge?

Based strictly on your proposed, "measure of a person's thoughts", both debate styles appear to be equal.

With perhaps some advantage to "self-moderated" because each participant would likely be expected to be biased toward themselves, (which denies any unfair advantage to either side) which would make a WIN exceptionally challenging and therefore exceptionally valuable.

Do you think it would be fair to say that you have zero interest in convincing your debate partner?

Yes but in order to measure if someone is telling a truth you need to know what is going on inside their mind. Without it a discussion depending on convincing the otherside is not good grounds to measure a debate because we have no way in reading people's minds.

Does self-moderate mean you can vote for yourself?

Maybe but in a debate a person's interest should be convincing the audience so your question is irrelevant to what a debate is about.  

That's why I proposed the 1/1/1 ranking system.

I find it much more practical to hone my rhetorical skill with the aim of convincing my opponent.

That's why I proposed the 1/1/1 ranking system.

I am guessing debater 1 gets 1, debater 2 gets 1 and the audience gets 1.

I find it much more practical to hone my rhetorical skill with the aim of convincing my opponent.

Under the assumption they agree with a discussion format and are willing to have their mind changed.

Highly unlikely. Biden V Trump is a clear example at the peak of debating.

If that was changed to Biden having to persuade Trump,

...the entire time would be spent trying to but we both know he is clueless or deliberately misleading people so Biden is wasting his time.

Or are you perhaps better served by COVINCING THEM with rhetorical skill.

Your example simply highlights the PROBLEM with a "traditional-style" debate.

AND, Trump having to persuade Biden...

And how is that outcome materially different

you told Trump and Biden and the Audience that ONLY the participants could award points to each other (presumably on common-ground) and the "moderator" was simply there to keep time

the audience could much more easily judge who was a better NEGOTIATOR (incidentally a crucial skill in state-craft, also known as DIPLOMACY which just happens to be one of the PRIMARY jobs of so-called politicians).

The media isn't going to focus on "the win for Trump".  They're going to focus on the point of agreement, and the fact that Biden appeared to be a more honest and open debater.

And I would consider that a MAJOR IMPROVEMENT over the current system that simply promotes mindless spectacle.

Undecided voters are so stupid it is insane. To even think they can't pick from the two before the debates has started shows the lack of understanding of the platforms. A debate won't change that.

I think it would be a good idea to give mods the ability to vote on debates that end in a no vote tie

• Tied categorical votes no longer giving points to both sides (it's a little confusing to look at)
  
• Updating "Spelling and Grammar" to "Legibility" (we did a referendum awhile ago to allow other issues to penalize this point)
  
• Changing "Four points" to "Categorical" (four points is technically seven points across four categories)