Example: the debate Islam is Useless in Every sense [https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/71/islam-is-useless-in-every-sense], neither opponent enter argument. Pro [the instigator] forfeited each round, a full forfeiture, and thus automatic loss, but Con never wrote an argument in any round, but merely acknowledged forfeiture by Pro on round one, and rested on that statement for the balance of rounds, That is not a winning argument, either, so should not deserve to win, but there is a vote declaring Con the winner. How can one win a debate merely by default, It skews the rating of the opponent who has not legitimately offered argument. Surely, that cannot be. I argue. for adding a fourth voting option: a null vote, which does not award either opponent.
The null vote is needed to distinguish such debate results from a debate in which both opponents participate, but on which no voter registers any vote, which result is rendered as a tie. On DART, I was one of the leading contenders for such debate results: a tie because no one voted even though both participants participated. A tie is deserved in that instance, but not as above. In the case presented above, neither opponent even deserves the tie since neither participated. There must be a legit argument to meet BoP by at least one participant in at least one round in order to deserve a winning vote by at least one voter. If participants agree to a debate, to win or draw, they must participate in at least one round, better, of course, in all rounds. When one forfeits, the other can enter argument, and then waive following rounds to the end, or until the forfeiting participant enters argument in a later round.