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

Sorry for my absence, however I know I can still win this debate. You say, "Unfortunately, any voting system, regardless of who votes, retains biased decisions. We don't scrap voting systems because of this" I say: If we eliminate votes we likely know will be biased, we can make the outcome more likely to be truthful. You say, "I'm pretty sure Barack Obama and John McCain voted for themselves." I say: Not only should debators voting be eliminate for the likelyhood of biasedness, but if they are likely to cancel each other, what's the point?! Besides I can't vote on a debate. So everytime they would get a freebee if my opponent voted for themself. You say, "The only difference between a world where debaters and users vote and a world where only the users vote is two votes." I say: In the unfair debate that made my start this one, only one person voted....my opponent. I did not have the ability to vote, which would have tied it. So it was not fair. You say, "Where do these pointless argumentations come from, and what are they?" I say: I did not state nor insuate that. They do not "come from" somewhere, but if there is just one corrupt vote, then it jeprodizes the outcome. You say, "If only one debater votes, then whatever outcome would have been 'jeopardized' could be normalized if the other debater voted." I say: I can't vote. So I can't normalize it. Therefore, unjust odds swing to my opponent in the case I mention earlier. You say, "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." I say: Huh? There is no agreement. I would vote without the consent, approval, or influence of my opponent. I do not think it likely for anyone to vote for their opponent. Not impossible, improbable. You say, "Debaters both favoring their own side or the other side is no problem. First, the votes 'nullify' each other" I say: Again, I can't vote. So I can not 'nullify'. Your point no longer flows through. (Define 'truth in vote'. How does debaters voting nullify a truthful vote) What I mean by that is a vote that is unbiased and based on facts of the debate. I don't understand your second statement. ---I said: --You said: -No. There will always be negatives, but saying that just because there is 'one' negative something should be scrapped is foolish -I say: YES! If there is one case that could have changed the outcome if the resolution was implemented, it would have caused a change for the better. Therefore, I HAVE PROVEN MY POINT. Excuse me if I sound rude. You say, "Allowing debaters who are going to vote for themselves will not create a biased vote, as their two biases will cancel each other out" I say: Yet again, I can't so I vote, can't cancel out. It isn't fair to me. I have proven to this site that I have a vaild e-mail, phone number, etc. But I still can't vote. ---I say, --You say, "This is irrelevant. You can counteract a biased vote by voting on the website instead of a ph -I say, It is not irrelevant. I was told by the site I would have to recieve a text to be able to vote. I can't text. So I am penalized even when I have proven to the site that I have a valid email, phone number, etc. So, I can't "counterbalance" You say, Ulitmately (debaters) should have the right to vote. I say, I don't have the right to vote, because I don't have a texting plan. I apologize if it sounds like I am repeating myself, but all of my responses are relivant. Good luck.