You should not be allowed to vote on a debate that you participated in.

There has been a minor confusion. During this debate, I (ToastOfDestiny) shall be debating the Con side. I shall argue for debaters voting in their debates. James. ticknor will argue the Pro side, against debaters voting in their debates. When you are voting please keep this in mind. To cast your vote for me, you will put points in the Pro slot, but really be awarding points to the Con argument, and vice-versa for James. Thank you for bearing with us. < > -How do we know that all debaters vote in a biased way? What about the debaters that vote in a valid way? -There are four (not three - I thought of one more) scenarios in which debaters vote. The analysis of each, again: 1) One debater votes: this can easily be righted if both vote. I will get to Pro's personal appeal in a second. 2) Both vote for their own side: understandable, they were debating after all. 3) Both vote for the other side: unlikely but fine. Both admit defeat, so it must have been a close debate. 4) Both vote for one side: there is a consensus on who has won. They don't have to literally say "we agree that X won", but in voting for one side there is an unspoken agreement. This is not improbable. I can almost guarantee you that the top 10% of debaters, as well as other prominent members, would probably admit defeat (if they were somehow defeated). The only debaters that would vote in a biased manner are the ones who would vote in such a manner regardless. That is, they would vote abusively in all debates, not just their own. Preventing debaters from voting doesn't solve this problem. The kind of person that would give him/herself a +7 is a biased voter in all cases, not just in their debates. These biased votes aren't a problem with the debaters, but with the people. However, keep in mind that many debaters vote legitimately. If we stopped debaters from voting, we get rid of these good votes. Pro is removing the legitimacy of voting. His solution throws out the baby with the bathwater. < > -So just because you can't vote, all debaters shouldn't be able to? I don't want to sound like a total jerk, but we can't prevent all DDO debaters from voting because of you. Check it out: . http://www.debate.org... . As of now, there are over 12,000 DDO members. Even if some of those members suffer the same texting predicament as you, we have to consider the other 11-odd thousand. < > - Actually, you said "The entire debate outcome is therefore jeprodized and subject to pointless arguementations. ." in your first contention. I just wanted to know what you meant by pointless argumentations. <> -Again, regrettable, but we can't put everyone on hold because of you. < >. -Again, Aff and Neg don't have to come out and say it. But admitting defeat is difficult, and giving debaters this opportunity is giving them a chance to grow. > -Unless there are two-three cases in which it would have not helped. You seem to forget that the 'one case' argument doesn't work. We must evaluate something like this on the whole. For the one case for the better, how many would go the other way? In summary: 1) Not allowing debaters to vote gets rid of legitimate voting. 2) All users have the right to vote - this shouldn't change because someone is debating. While james. ticknor's predicament is regrettable, we can't suspend debaters from voting because of him. 3) The only difference between a world where debaters vote and where they don't is two votes. James. ticknor is an anomaly. 4) Biased voting is not a problem with debaters, but with people. Preventing debaters from voting also prevents legitimate voting. 5) Allowing debaters to vote allows them to grow as people by admitting defeat and voting for their opponent. Ultimately, letting debaters vote has more positive effects than negatives.