The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States

Indeed, apparently this debate has come down to the realm of technicalities. "My opponents definition of voting is so one-dimensional." First of all, regardless of how unconventional my Round 1 definition may seem, my arguments are based off of it. I am sure that, in an extremely general sense, "voting" may entail much more. However, I based my Round 1 definition according to the type of voting which has the potential to develop flawed results. The definition I supplied only covers that, and thus I created my definition accordingly. "Voting doesn't always have to based on preference, that's why i gave my own definitions of voting. E.g. Senator Lieberman voted for the Bush Tax Cuts, however he admitted to the press he was personally against them. He admitted that it would help stimulate the economy, BUT HE WAS PERSONALLY AGAINST IT." Indeed, voting DOES NOT always have to be based on preference. HOWEVER, voting always has the POTENTIAL to be based off of individual and arbitrary preference. That is my point; as long as the system of voting allows for the potential to have its voters base their votes upon mere preference, the system can readily produce flawed results. I am arguing, again, that because of this flaw, it should not be used in the United States government to establish federal laws. Of course, though, there may be some instances where congressmen such as Lieberman attempt to vote for the right thing instead of the individually preferable thing. (By the way, I am not saying that Lieberman's decision was logically correct; I am merely saying that this is an example of a politician that did indeed step outside of the lines of the individually preferable, in ATTEMPT to do what was right.) "now with this example in mind, my opponents definition of voting cannot stand. You must look at my definitions." As I said, my definition MUST stand, as, even though it may not fit with every type of considered techniques of voting, my definition only entails the casting of "one's preference for a particular measure or resolution." If this definition of voting were to continually be utilized in the federal government, it would threaten the viability of mutual agreement and shared conclusions to federal debates. Simply because there are those politicians that may step out of the normal boundaries in attempt to do what they consider to be right, there is the potential for any number of the other congressmen to not do the same; hence the flaw. However, irrelevant as they may be to this debate, I will analyze your definitions anyway. The first definition you supplied essentially re-states my definition in a different wording. The second definition you supplied is much more general, and does allow room for mutual agreement, as it does not describe the techniques of the voting process. Still, however, you must abide by the definition I have utilized in this debate, given in my Round 1, as I have initiated the debate, and thus my arguments are based off of the definitions given. Even though my definition given in my Round 1 of voting might not entail every aspect or cover every possible definition of the term, it is still essential to the debate. All other definitions of voting, though perhaps covering more of its dimensions, are currently irrelevant in this particular debate. I have postulated the following throughout the debate: What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular. I have affirmed the resolution: The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States. Therefore, considering that all debates on this site are voted on, it would be correct to vote PRO. Although, since voting has the potential to be flawed, there will be the potential that the vote on this debate will not accurately represent that which is right. However, considering that this debate will be voted on anyway, I ask readers to vote PRO. I have successfully rebutted incoming arguments, as well as having succeeded in vigilantly defending my arguments regarding the initial resolution. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and enthralling discussion was produced. The debate was fun, Oboeman.