DDO should have a setting for no votes.

I'd like to state that you have improved a lot in the way you handle yourself in this debate nonprophet compared to our previous debates - great job. Now I will state my final arguments: That is a very good point. However, usually one sentence replies do not count. Moreover, votes are only to be reported if they go against the Terms of Service, "By its very nature, Debate.org can lead to heated exchanges between members. Please do not report content unless it is in clear violation of the Terms of Use" (1). Basically, I get your point. You are saying that because there are people who refuse to be unbiased that they will find a reason to agree with their bias. However, like I said, that is why there is the judge option. If we were to follow the logic that nobody can properly vote or to be afraid of everyone who potentially does vote because of their bias, then nobody would want to have a voted debate ever. Moreover, as I have shown previously, a debate is supposed to be persuasive. You are to persuade people to agree with you. With that logic there is no point in debating then. People are to be persuaded, and votes are to be cast to prove who won fairly. You can claim that people can do this without votes, but then what is the distinction between a discussion, conversation, etc. and a debate? Would that mean every time I disagree with my spouse that I am debating her, or is it just a normal conversation? Then nobody has to accept the debate. For example, if I started a Creationism versus Atheism debate, and recruited only Christian judges, it is obviously unfair. Nobody has to accept it. It is just an alternative to the other methods of voting and judging a debate. Nothing will ever be perfect when it comes to voting. It is indeed. First of all, it is not against the Terms of Service to break your rules you stated at the beginning of the debate (1). Secondly, you can argue that more points are required for conduct, but that is an entirely different debate. As it stands, I think it is fair. However, how much points should there really be for conduct, compared to spelling, grammar, etc.? It is a hard question to accurately answer. The point was, with the current tactic you were using, you were gaining in percentile because of all of your ties. So yes, if non-voting debates were an option, unless they didn't effect your percentile, it would raise you in the percentile ranks. My last argument I think my opponent did not understand what my main point was. My opponent states, "The assertion my opponent makes that "A debate is supposed to have a winner most of the time" is just made up nonsense. A debate is really an exchange of ideas, not a fight. Debates very rarely get anyone to change their minds on a subject, in which case a person will vote the same way before and after a debate, no matter what the content of it is." I would now like to remind my opponent of the definitions I posted previously. Firstly, about what a debate is, "Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic."(2). Even though my opponent complained on the tactics people have used to beat him / win against him in debates, it is clearly fair. People are to persuade people, as well as it says, ""one side often prevails over the other side"" (2). Moreover, "Debating is commonly carried out in many assemblies of various types to discuss matters and to make resolutions about action to be taken, often by a vote."(2). It is quite clear when reading upon the debates that they are supposed to have votes in order to understand who won, etc. However, lets compare this to a discussion, "an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate."(3). It would seem that this would imply that a discussion as a debate without votes, which isn't really as much of a debate at all. However, an informal debate is not, just to clarify, "Although informal debate is common the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. The outcome of a contest may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two." (1). Just because that may be confusing, I put that in there. Basically, my main point is that debates are supposed to have votes. That is the entire point of a debate to a degree. Lastly, as it has been told to my opponent previously in the comment section, if he wishes to argue with people about topics without voting, there is a forum for a reason. It is not the same as a formal debate. I thank you again for this debate nonprophet. I made a few mistakes along the way, but we'll see who airmax thinks won. Resources: (1) http://www.debate.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://dictionary.reference.com...