Debate.org votes biased

"Second, I would like to say that in no way has my opponent refuted all of my points. He dropped the first half of my argument..." I dropped the first half because it was on the wrong definition. It is now irrelevant that the site cannot vote for itself. To refute my point that everyone is at least partially biased he says: "I never said I was completely unbiased, I said I have yet to vote based on a bias. You believe this is wrong but for now, you cannot prove it." By human nature you at least somewhat biased, as in considering a point made, etc. It is human nature to be very biased, and you cannot escape that completely when you vote. Then, my opponent stubbornly maintains his argument that bias is always unreasonable. It does not have to be, an inclination to consider one's own argument superior is not necessarily unreasonable, but it is biased. Also, all humans have inclinations and tendencies to interpret and consider points different ways. I may find a point ridiculous and vote against that debater, while another member of this site may interpret it as very logical, and vote for that debater. Voters are biased when they vote for themselves, that's an inclination to consider points made be yourself superior, voters are biased when they vote for anyone on the site as well, either they have an inclination to look at points in a certain way, or they have an inclination that one debater was better in that instance. If a debate was so clear cut, there would never be any disagreement. Reiterating my point, there is bias when we consider the validity of points, and that is what will affect the decision of the voter the most. For example, once this debate is finished, a voter may read it, and decide that yes, you were allowed to supply your own interpretation of the resolution, and we have to look at it that way, and then, you would likely win. Another voter may come through, and decide that my interpretation is more valid, and vote based on that. The issue is not necessarily clear cut, and different people will interpret that differently, making their vote based on that bias. "Everybody is slightly biased but simply being biased doesn't prove your resolution, voting biased does." I have just shown that bias will inevitably creep into the voter's decision. "My interpretation cannot be invalid as it is my interpretation. You did not expound in your R1 and therefore, you opened the field for a range of semantics arguments." In Round One I said, "I think the resolution is clear. If you have a problem, we can debate what it means as well." When you accepted this debate you accepted those parameters. When you presented your interpretation of the resolution, you had a problem with the definition that was pretty darn implicit in the resolution. So, we had to debate it. I provided an expert testimony from the author of the resolution (myself) to say what it means. The expert is more valid in interpreting the resolution than you are, therefore we must accept the expert's definition. Why vote PRO? 1. I have shown that bias is inevitable when voting 2. I have refuted my opponent's case, on my interpretation by going line by line and showing its fallaciousness, and for his interpretation by showing it was irrelevant.