the voting system here is flawed, people simply vote their bias, not by fair merit

I hope Con views the comments as a learning experience. The debate topic was about voting with bias vs merit. If you do not vote on merit, you vote on bias. Con's assumes bias yet gives no evidence of merit that was worthy of a win.

Because Con made the better argument in my opinion.
Neither produced any relevant sources, but it was all conjecture and rhetoric anyway.
The Con also made better use of grammar. Not using caps lock when not required.
And the Con also had the better conduct. Not making accusations about other users.

Oro has incoherent rant woth no ppints. Con gives good.

If you punish this vote, I can show you other that shouldn't make the cut.

Con offered legitimate4 debate points. Pro complained of voting bias in all 5 rounds of argument, without presenting evidence in any round by sourcing, or by investigative argument. Con wins the points and the debate.

Pro gives very little evidence not listening evidence and personally attacking using an ad hominem in his attacks overall. Con respectfully refutes with evidence and I give advantage to the CON

Pro offers no evidence nor coherent argument to back up his claims of the site being " anti-socialist"

This claim, however, is actually false considering that even though I personally label myself as a socialist on this site, I still maintain an 85 % win ratio. One of which was a forfeit.

Not to mention death who also labels himself as a socialist who has a good ratio.

Essentially Pro's claims are illogical and false

Pro presents no evidence whatsoever that people vote against others simply due to not liking them, that debates should be decided by elite/respected elders, or that his "mistreatment" is as the result of him being socialist. The only thing pro stated was that he was "smart", and that this was enough to justify the shifting of the BoP to Con.

The only evidence Pro gives for his claims is his personal experiences of being consistently voted against. Con provides alternative explanations that Pro fails to address. Pro also claims that his point is self-evident and the burden of proof is on his opponent. Con points out that it is only evident to Pro. Pro clearly has the burden of proof in this debate, and he fails to even come close to meeting it.

PRO claims to suffer from anti-socialist discrimination but his remedy is to put all of the means for vote production in the hands of an elite establishment. Demonstrating previously unseen capacities for irony, PRO efficiently establishes that most of his debates are about the subject of socialism and also establishes that PRO lacks even a fundamental understanding for this favorite topi. PRO argues himself from the table before CON can even sit down to eat.

Pro must prove the "people simply vote their bias, not by fair merit."

He, at no point in the debate gives any evidence to prove this. He merely states his frustration with people consistently voting against him, when pressured to substantiate his claims, he fails to do so. Pro does state the improbability of being consistently voted against, his only real sufficient argument he made, but there are explanations for this that Con points out. When Con states it is possible that a person may just make inferior arguments in every debate, Pro fails to contest this.

Pro demands that con read his mind to find the self evident things that he refuses to share, in a complete misuse of the turn Burden of Proof...

The whole debate can be best summarized with an entire short round in order...
Con: "Although statistically unlikely, it is possible if your opponents consistently made stronger cases, it would be the logical outcome. Can you name any specific debates in which he voted against you when you feel you should have won?"
Pro: "I am too smart to be treated this way, it is obviously bias"

As can be seen in the example, pro refuses to share any evidence that there is a problem outside his own mind.

Pro makes rather exaggerated claims about voter bias on the site, but gives no specific examples or any non-generic argument. Whilst this would stand, con provided a single example of a voter voting against their pre conceived notions in a debate. Whilst this is an anecdote, it is the only hard evidence presented by either side.

Both sides argue mostly their opinion about the nature of bias votes, but as con has the benefit of not making the claim and not having burden of proof, his pointing out that the con hasn’t offered any concrete examples and thus his claims are merely opinion underscores that pro hasn’t met his burden of proof.

For these two reasons, con does enough to pull the rug out of pros tenuous argument - win to con.