Most of UltimateRussian's votes are bad and should be removed.

Outline: I've challenged UltimateRussian to this debate because of his voting record. My intentions is to prove his votes are outside the rules, hoping to give him a chance to fix them. To prove my case, I must show that UltimateRussian is in violation of the rules. In Premise 1 (P1) I will outline the rules of the site. In Argument I (A1) I will display his votes for the voters to see. They will undoubtedly see how the votes do not follow the Rules of Voting.Premise I: The Rules of Voting.Definitions:RFD: Is an abbreviation for Reason For Decision. These are mandatory on most debates. When a user votes and leaves an RFD, it should explain why he voted for a certain member in each voting category.Votebombing: Is a practice on DDO where a member puts all of his votes towards one member either because he agrees with that member or because he wants that member to win. Never, ever votebomb, and if you feel it is necessary to put all 7 votes towards one member, make sure to leave a Reason For Decision (RFD) that explains your reasoning.A good, legal vote requires a few things. It must have a proper RFD, Reason For Decision. The RFD must be detailed enough to explain why you voted the way you did. Without the RFD, your vote should be removed. The RFD can be large, or even 'explain' why you voted, and not be acceptable because the reasons are unrelated to any argument actually made or are more of an excuse to wrongly hand out votes. The second rule is Votebombing. While the definition claims all 7 votes are involved, an experienced debater knows that's not the case. A votebomb can, and commonly so, involve just the amount of votes needed to make the person you agree with win.1) http://www.debate.org...Argument I: UltimateRussians Votes.Looking at each bad vote, and describing it's errors, we'll see that 8 out of his 13 votes are bad. The others, except for one or two, are also bad, but within the rules, so we can't do anything about them. The 8th votes was deleted after the debate was accepted, but will still be discussed as evidence towards Con's voting habits. The ratio is still at 58% of his vote record. While this looks like it's within the rules, it's not. The RFD doesn't exclain most of the points given. At most, it'd justifies sources. This vote states that the person made stupid claims, but what of Sources, Conduct, or Spelling? It doesn't explain why the arguments were stupid, either. More insult than explanation. This explains nothing. It's stating something about what would happen if the debate had continued, without explaining his votes. At most it might explain Arguments, but not Sources and Conduct. Despite, at most, explaining Arguments, he didn't even give anyone the argument points. It's not an appropriate RFD. This is not an RFD. The debate was about animal cruelty. Of course pets were involved. This is an excuse, and nothing more. It doesn't explain conduct, and especially not sources. This is a Votebomb. Con voted because, REGARDLESS of the argument, Snowden was a criminal and the Government must so and so, therefore the person lost. Con didn't defend the decision other than by saying the equivalent of "He is wrong... That's that, period!" Same with this vote. He doesn't explain anything, just hands out EVERY point. His only statement is that the guy was wrong though. This is both a Votebomb and lacking an RFD. While I can't show the last vote, as it was already deleted, I can show evidence of it being there. The vote in an example of Con's voting style and how his votes should be changed or deleted. As everyone can see, most of his votes are bad, and do not match the rules for voting.2) http://www.debate.org...3) http://www.debate.org...4) http://www.debate.org...5) http://www.debate.org...6) http://www.debate.org...7) http://www.debate.org...8) http://www.debate.org...9) http://www.debate.org...Conclusion: As his votes do not follow the rules, he should either fix them, or have them deleted.