DDO should have a setting for no votes.

I do hope he considers this with an open mind. Now back to the debate:My opponent says"First I'd like to point out that there is a report button next to every vote. "Yes, that is true and I'd admit it is affective against blatant 7 point vote bombs, but otherwise it's just useless. It's very hard to tell the biased votes from the legitimate ones, when they have a reason for voting that sounds sort of like they read the debate. It is very easy to put down a vague reason for voting that still sounds legitimate. Examples include: "Pro used better sources", "Con had better conduct", and "Pro was more convincing". My opponent also said: "Secondly, there will always be some sort of bias when someone votes. "I think that point is really another good reason why an option for no-voting debates is legitimate. If someone wants to debate without risking losing by biased votes, why not allow them to do so? My opponent goes on to say "Therefore, DDO implemented a judging system which you are using for this debate to decide on who wins. This way, you can get people from each bias to vote. For example, you can get people who are your friends, and who aren't your friends"I'm sorry, but that made me laugh. People who debate for votes want to win. It's easier to win if you just recruit your own friends as judges. I doubt anyone would really be that honest as to use both friends and non-friends as judges without being forced to. Concerning the second point 2) People go against your rules within the debate:I would argue that a single conduct point out of 7 total, is a very slight deterrent from breaking debate rules. If anything, it encourages people to break the rules, because a sacrifice of one point to gain 6 is really worth breaking rules for. That's exactly what happens in my examples where a specific definition is what hinges on the entire debate. Just break the rule on the agreed upon definition, lose a point but win the debate by breaking the rule. The conduct point is not a deterrent to rule breaking. As for my opponent's claim that a non-voting debate will make a person's ranking less accurate, I have to laugh again. A tie is like not having a debate at all when it comes to ranking. As far as I know, it doesn't affect a persons ELO or win/loss status. This is exactly why I think the option of a no-vote debate is a good one! When you have a debate without having to worry about votes, you can enjoy the whole experience more. You don't have to play semantic tricks or other nonsense just to win. Instead you can concentrate on facts and real arguments. Also, You could choose to debate topics you may not be well versed in, which gives you an opportunity to learn things without worrying about "losing" or being humiliated. If the only reason you debate is to "win" votes. you become an expert at BS. All that happens is you start to sharpen skills about technicalities, semantics, and logical fallacies and less on real facts. The assertion my opponent makes that "A debate is supposed to have a winner most of the time" is just made up nonsense. A debate is really an exchange of ideas, not a fight. Debates very rarely get anyone to change their minds on a subject, in which case a person will vote the same way before and after a debate, no matter what the content of it is. Once again, thank you for this opportunity to debate this topic seriously. No matter what the outcome, it was a pleasure.