Should we use the debate algorithm on wikidebates?

Using the debate algorithm to organize arguments and objections is interesting, but is it actually useful? Or is the only thing it can really settle the question of which side got the last word in?

Arguments for

 * The "refuted" and "sustained" tags engage visitors to read more about an argument, especially when they disagree about its current status.
 * The "refuted" and "sustained" tags act as a "call to action" for users who disagree with the current status of an argument.
 * The debate algorithm motivates users to organize arguments so as to reach a logical conclusion about the current status of the debate.

Arguments against

 * The algorithm only determines which side got the last word in.
 * If an argument is stupid or otherwise unacceptable, it can be easily countered or deleted.
 * A skilled enough debater can produce acceptable arguments for just about anything, so this doesn't mean wikidebates will lead to truth.
 * When an argument is sound (valid and with true premises), there's no sound objection to be made (or the world would be contradictory). For less clear cases, only experience can tell how far a skilled debater can argue before appealing to stupid arguments that can be easily deleted or countered.
 * The algorithm is highly vulnerable to the, as it treats each "argument" as of equal value, and codifies the "but you didn't refute each of my points" objection that the Gallop relies on to "win".
 * Unlike live debates (such as the ones took part), wikidebates don't have a time limit, so all the arguments that have an answer can eventually be answered.
 * The notion of lack of time limit and response count limit is all too likely lead to spiraling arms races between the debaters, making the discussion hard to follow and add increasingly smaller value. All too often, it is the wiser debater who leaves the last word to the other party. Ultimately, the reader has to determine whether an argument without response is so strong that no good response is possible or so weak and unconvincing that a further response is not required to convince the reader. An alternative would be arguments like "Clearly untrue", "Unconvincing" and the like, which add no argument substance and merely create an empty termination, but such an empty termination can be added by any party lacking actually strong response. Put differently, each lacking response to an argument is ambiguous between two as if invisible responses: "I am convinced; I have no more objections" or "Clearly untrue or wrong; not worth responding to".
 * The algorithm counts an argument as "refuted" simply because it has a sustained objection, regardless of the content of that objection. It's a purely formal criteria of refutation which says nothing about the importance of the objection.
 * If the objection is superficial, misguided, stupid or otherwise not important, it will be quickly refuted.
 * There is the risk that an objection's being superficial, stupid, misguided or unimportant is a subjective assessment, not necessarily a refutation. There may be "stupid"-looking arguments that are not easy to refute quickly.
 * A "sustained" argument is nothing else than an "unrefuted" argument. But "unrefuted" does not mean that the argument is . The debate algorithm does not say anything about soundness.
 * Soundness is just as unattainable as truth (indeed, truth is part of the definition of soundness). All we can hope for is getting all arguments and objections in. And that should be enough.
 * With the debate algorithm, the "refuted" or "sustained" tags of the arguments only depend on the "refuted" or "sustained" tags of the objections, of the objections to the objections, and so on. As a result, as long as every argument and objection isn't listed in the debate, the "refuted" or "sustained" tags are not relevant.
 * It isn't necessary for all the arguments of a debate to be listed for the "refuted" and "sustained" tags to be relevant. If an argument has many well-known objections, but only a few have been listed, then that argument will be shown as "refuted", even if some objections are missing. Similarly, if an argument is generally accepted, it may be shown as "sustained" even if not all the objections to the objections to that argument have been listed.
 * To be relevant, "refuted" or "sustained" tags imply that arguments and objections are all listed. But if so, that entails a huge cascade of objections, which is not convenient at all for reading.
 * The DebateTree software hides all objections and only shows the ones under the objection that the user clicks. This allows users to read as much as they consider relevant.
 * The debate algorithm assigns a "refuted" or "sustained" value to arguments. This can work for factual arguments, but it cannot for moral or prescriptive arguments – namely, arguments with "what ought to be" statements. These statements are subjective and cannot be discussed.
 * If moral or prescriptive issues really cannot be discussed, then all that will happen is that all the arguments for or against the these issues will end up refuted.
 * There are several wikidebates about moral or prescriptive issues going on, such as Should abortion be legal? Some of these debates are quite active and complex, so it looks that moral or prescriptive issues can be discussed.