Debate.org votes biased

Let's begin shall we? "I clearly said "I think the resolution is clear. If you have a problem, we can debate what it means as well." So, we will also have to debate what it means. Now, as I wrote this resolution myself, I think I could be considered an expert on what it means. To quote myself "This resolution means that voters on Debate.org vote based on their own beliefs rather than the quality of a position." Although I could have been clearer, I know what I meant, so I can enlighten you to what it means." It seems my opponent is confusing what is with what might be. I clearly stated that the resolution meant the site itself votes biased. He said it was self-explanatory and I found reason why he should have made it clearer. My opponent says he could have been clearer and if he could have, he should have. The resolution should have been, in order to support my opponent's defense, "The debators and voters on debate.org vote based on a biased assumption." "First, my opponent claims that the website itself can't vote. This is not necessarily true, it could have been programmed to vote on a debate." Though that is absurd, I have asked a moderator to comment either by email or on this debate on whether or not the site can vote. This will be present in either my R3 or R4. "Then, my opponent says that since the website has no conscience, it can't be biased. This also is not necessarily true. First, according to a 2005 NPR report, a man tested the shuffle feature on his iPod, and found it to be significantly biased towards playing Eagles music. I am not sure how he did this, but obviously this s[h]ows that a machine can be biased, for whatever reason. Also, the site could have been programmed to be biased towards one end of the political spectrum." My opponent brings up an interesting point but simply because an Ipod has a random obscene "bias" does not mean debate.org does. Also, to say an IPod has a bias, you must first prove that he did not have MORE Eagles songs than not. If he did, then it is not the Ipod that is biased, it is the man who put the songs on the IPod. "Everybody is biased. Including the voters of Debate.org, I vote on this site, and even though I try to be objective, I still am admittedly biased." I have yet to VOTE biased. Yes, some of the topics are against my beliefs but I refrain from using that bias against the debator who deserved to win. "Even if we were objective, and voted for the better debater, we would still be biased. That is, towards the better debater." Merriam-Webster: bias as: "a personal and unreasoned judgment" Voting for the person who deserved to win is in no way unreasoned and is, in fact, rather reasoned. "In this debate, PRO presented a superior argument, using Civil Unions as a superior alternative to gay marriage, and CON forfeited a round. CON won, as gay marriage is supported by many on this site. "The second example (Vote PRO), is one of my debates This site has many atheists and agnostics, my opponent conceded two rounds and never refuted my only weak premise, (I'm not going to say what that was). My opponent won." Even so, the resolution, which I have not accepted as your definition as of yet, under your circumstances states the site as a whole votes biased. "Debate.org votes biased" is an absolute statement. To say "Some members of debate.org vote biased." is not an absolute statement. Just because one person or even a small group of people are biased, does not mean the whole group is. "Some on this site vote for themselves. That is logical, but it is biased towards oneself. Therefore, they vote biased." It is not unreasoned though. Someone votes for themselves for a purpose: A feeling of victory or because they want the percent of their victory raised. This is in no way biased and therefore is not unreasoned. Thanks, -EG