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, and hand out your points accordingly. I will refer to James as Pro, since that's the side he's arguing. Definitions (my own) Debater - one who participates as either Pro or Con in a debate User - one who has signed up for DDO (Debate.org) Observation 1: All debaters on DDO are users as well. Observation 2: Users have the right to vote. I'll start with the Pro Case. My case is pretty much what I say to rebut his. Rather than being redundant and posting it once under Con Case, then again under my rebuttal, I will just post it as a rebuttal. Pro The burden of proof is on the claimant. If either of us makes a claim, we have to prove that claim. -I will not contend that the DDO voting system is biased. Unfortunately, any voting system, regardless of who votes, retains biased decisions. We don't scrap voting systems because of this. Take the U.S. electorate as an example. I'm pretty sure Barack Obama and John McCain voted for themselves. That doesn't make the election a farce. It simply allows people to express their views. Ultimately, the debaters are users, and have the right to vote. -How so? The only difference between a world where debaters and users vote and a world where only the users vote is two votes. Where do these pointless argumentations come from, and what are they? I don't see how debaters voting/not voting creates pointless argumentation in their debates. -The outcome of a debate will not be jeopardized as a result of debaters voting. There are three scenarios in which debaters vote: one debater votes, both favor one side, or each votes for a different side. -If only one debater votes, then whatever outcome would have been 'jeopardized' could be normalized if the other debater voted. It does not matter what side debaters vote for - so long as both of them vote. Because voting periods are generally lengthy enough to allow for both debaters to vote, I don't see a one-vote dilemma occurring. -If both debaters favor one side, they have obviously come to an agreement, or one debater has bowed down to another. I see no problem here - this promotes good sportsmanship. If a debater loses and votes for the other side, he/she is being responsible. -Debaters both favoring their own side or the other side is no problem. First, the votes 'nullify' each other. If each side grants themselves +4, there is no net difference. The only problem is with vote-bombers, but that is not a problem with letting 'debaters' vote - it is a problem with letting 'people' vote. -Define 'truth in vote'. How does debaters voting nullify a truthful vote? -No. There will always be negatives, but saying that just because there is 'one' negative something should be scrapped is foolish. Your contention would have weight if the negatives outweigh the positives. -If both sides have made valid arguments this will definitely be true. Allowing debaters who are going to vote for themselves will not create a biased vote, as their two biases will cancel each other out. -This is irrelevant. You can counteract a biased vote by voting on the website instead of a phone. Besides, if you can post an argument from a phone/device, I'm pretty sure you can vote from the phone/device. My argument can be neatly summarized as follows: Debaters are users, and ultimately should have the right to vote on all debates. All voters bring some bias into an issue (as is evident in the Religion category), but the voting system balances itself out on a whole.