Idea for winner-deciding rule change

nzlockie: Woo hoo. Somebody who gets it.

admin: Yet con won this debate
http://www.edeb8.com/debate/That+incestual+marriage+should+be+legalized+/

Blackflag: Huh. I will need to look into why that was.

admin: Well hopefully you can resolve it, or tie it, because LOC took a elo hit. We have to stay competitive with the secular society

From Joepbr after his inquiry into losing our tied debate: doesn't sound very fair

Blackflag: Haha lol - there's a secular society? OK, I'll get on it. And your thing with Krit too.

nzlockie: I like no ties. If Pro is not negated, then they SHOULD win.

This is only true when Con is the one that has the burden of proof, which doesn't always happen.
If the resolution is like "Stealing is not wrong" then Pro is the one that has the BoP and Con is the one that must be negated.
And there are also many debates with a shared BoP in which giving the victory to any side would be entirely arbitrary.

Maybe there could be an option of choosing who has the BoP when setting the rules of the debate, the side that doesn't get the BoP has the advantage in the case of a tie, and if the case of a shared BoP, a tie would stay as a tie. Although there are many debates where defining the BoP is part of the debate, so there could be an option for "disputed" BoP, which would have the same effect as a shared one.

Joepbr: This is only true when Con is the one that has the burden of proof, which doesn't always happen.

Are you sure you didn't mix this up? If con has the BOP (which actually almost never happens), and pro is not negated, then isn't it quite probable that con has failed their BOP by failing to answer pro's argument?