The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Cost of 3 Debate requirement outweighs the benefit and adversely inhibits participation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
DareToQuestion has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 60 times Debate No: 95480
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I assert that better exploration of ideas occurs with more and more diverse perspectives expressed and that creating a significant barrier to participation, in the form of the voting restriction until someone has completed 3 debates, hinders that goal. While I am in sympathy with the desired goal of protecting the integrity of the voting process I believe this can be achieved in other, less onerous, ways and that the value added by allowing new members to participate more fully sooner more than makes up for any possible loss of integrity. If the integrity of a specific debate is so important then Judged voting can be chosen. The current rule is the same as saying someone can't give an opinion about a football game until they have participated in several. I suggest that another method can and should be found and, by way of not just pointing out problems, suggest lower weighting of new member votes with that weight growing based on activity in debate section or across the whole site.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.