You shouldn't be allowed to vote for yourself in debates.

Lol, i thought quick responses was normal. Anyway confusing me in the begin doesn't help either... This debate is all about the opinions over the voting system. There are no true winners, its just for convincement. Also, you keep menting Kleptin. Sure he has a big win ratio and all but thats still an opinion, however u look at it. Again, i have a feeling you are trying to make Kleptin a salvation of the debaters. Look back at point A, which you clearly state: "Now, the lower your win ratio, the more evidence there is that you are hated/discriminated against." You clearly state that users with lower win ratio gets hated. Now I ask again, do you think that every loser with zero wins is hated? And don't tell me again that you didn't say that. Also, you want an example of a debate where someone voted for himself in his debate and won, but sadly i can't show you one since: 1. I have a life, I'm not gonna check through ALL the debates. 2. Its something uncommon to show up with the increasing debaters. "So all one has to do is barrow few cellphones like from brothers and uncles and close friends plus old phones are almost free and people usually have at average two phones (In Ireland thats a common truth)" You are right here, I wish debate.org has changed this. Another note is that if people multi account, just to vote for himself, he/she risks to be banned. The victory he gets can turn very sourly into the last he can get. I guess my point is a bit changed. My idea now is to either remove the verification and let us ALL vote or simply prevent people from voting from themself. "If I see a debate called "Jesus is a myth", I will obviously disagree but despite this I oath to vote for who won the debate even if Pro did (even if i could refute Pro I still ought to vote for Pro because it not my debate)." I already told you, personal opinion is allowed. What you are now telling me is YOUR personal opinion. You expect that eveyone will nicely play by the rules and vote for the winner instead of choosing someone else because you hate a certain person? I already told you, personal opinion plays a factor in votes. You made clear that you would vote for the winner, yet there are some people who would vote for pro instantly if there was something like "Jesus is a myth". "Yes it should be allowed but voting of this kind doesnt consider the debate itself and who made better arguments.Hence the winner is random despite those 7 points which one can add by voting for oneself." Thats why its called a vote, you vote with personal opinions about the debate. My point is that people abuse the voting system because they vote for themself, not because some personal feelins. "It does give an advantage but only microscopically when compared to other factors. The best way is to simply not care because although there are plenty of instances where the voting was fair there are just as many of unfair examples. In conclusion: Follow Kleptin for he will lead us to oasis!" How can you call it something small? A vote is still a vote which people abused to get an extra 7 points. And don't give me those hasty conclusions, Kleptin's idea was an opinion. I have 2 ideas now which you can refute it if you want. 1) We remove the verification and allow EVERYONE to vote. Pro: Your opponent votes for himself? Vote for yourself too without problem. 2) We block people from voting themself. Pro: People can't vote for themself anymore. Either idea works, but for the cons, i have you add to your rebuttal.