The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

DDO Presidential candidates should be openly endorsed by two people before being able to run

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,015 times Debate No: 19792
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

imabench

Pro

THIS DEBATE IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT HOW ELECTIONS ARE RUN ON DDO

This is just a thought that has been in my mind for a while while observing the DDO presidential race. This in no way is meant to introduce, imply, or suggest changing the system. This is my personal thought and opinion and nothing else.

Now that we got that out of the way. The Con is allowed to use the first round for arguments or only accept the debate.

Again, this debate is not meant to suggest, imply, start any kind of movement for reform, etc. about how campaigns are run on DDO, this is just a thought of mine and im willing to debate it...
Danielle

Con

I don't necessarily agree -- it doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference in terms of creating a higher probability of a positive outcome. In fact, I think it can be counterproductive. I look forward to hearing your arguments convincing us of the resolution, Pro, and good luck :)

Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

I thank Danielle for accepting this debate so I will present my arguments for why I personally believe (and in no way am trying to endorse) that DDO presidential candidates should be nominated by two different people before they can run because

1) 1 endorsement I feel isnt enough, users can easily create an alternative account when the need to be nominated comes about. It is very easy to set up another account, and in fact people have been creating dual accounts to use to vote for their own debates or to boost their win numbers by debating their own other profile, sometimes alternate accounts are used just to quickly unlock voting ability.

My point is though that a single account could easily be created to be used just to get an endorsement, however crating two for an endorsement is better because if a person needs two endorsements, they cannot simply create two accounts because enough suspicion would be raised about two suddenly new accounts with no debates or forum posts or any knowledge of DDO who suddenly are endorsing the same presidential nominee. the point of having two nominations is to prevent a candidate from being nominated with a dummy account, and trying to use two dummy accounts would raise enough suspicion to realize the fraud that has taken place.

2) Why endorsements at all? I invite you to look at the latest presidential polls. Because of my interest in numbers and this site I went through the votes cast for president on the voting forum to help people find out whose winning, whose losing, and by how much. Here is what I found.

1st place = Innomen = 31
2nd place = Jimtimmy = 6
3rd place = Socialpinko = 5
4th place =
Tyler90az
Partam Ruhem
Viper King
Putin
Reformedarsenal
Comicalfanso
Obama
Vmpire321
Peacefulchaos

With each having one vote.

For every one legit candidate in the election there are 3 others who in almost every case have received one vote because they themselves have given themselves one vote. Almost all "candidates" are only on that list because they voted for themselves. Is this such a problem though?

If you decided to browse the forums on DDO just a few days before the voting polls opened you would have seen a peculiar thing. Prior to the election actually occurring the forums were completely trampled with new threads about how candidates were announcing the were running for president, threads about who exactly was running for president, and even threads telling people to vote for them. Viperking alone created 3 threads to announce he was running for president or to tell voters to vote for him, he now trails with just under 2% of the polls with only one actual vote being cast for him, his own.

3) If candidates had to be nominated to campaign, the amount of spamming of new topics posted to the forums would go down significantly, people would be less confused about who all was running for president, and in some cases your mail would be less spammed. Recently a presidential candidate (who shall remain nameless) who only has one vote, his own, sent out friend requests with messages to as many people as he/she could find. In the message was his platform about why people should vote him for president of DDO. Now this site is known for its integrity and intelligence in debates and knowledge that can be learned from such debates, but if every six months a presidential race comes out and users have to put up with spams in the forums and even in their own mail, then that would cost this site integrity.

4) Benefit to DDO's integrity and population of intelligent members.
Under this system, yes many people would not be able to run, I concede that. I also concede many of them may be perfectly normal candidates who have ideas, i cannot argue against that.

However.....

If you look through some of the one-vote candidates who would be eliminated from running, their platforms for their change to DDO wouldnt exactly be beneficial to the website.... lets look at some candidates and their possible impact on DDO.

1) Viperking - wants to completely reorganize the site so that it is designed to eliminate trolls and spammers while drastically trying to increase the number of people who join the site. Trolls and votebombers are already handled and with an influx of many new people coming the nubmer of them being trolls or votebombers may get out of hand and his system might not eliminate all of them or eliminate actual normal DDO members.

2) Tyler90az - wants to make history by being mormon and trying to get as many people as possible to join DDO, that could have been disasterous for the site because many trolls, votebombers, and mindless idiots would storm DDO and drive it to the ground.

3) Izbo - Ok for real, god knows what he would have done to this site, the first thing he would do is ban half the people who have annoyed him in the past though and from there this website would have been driven into the ground one way or another.

The 2 endorsement deal would eliminate some potentially good candidates, however it could eliminate a very large number of ill-informed candidates who spam the forums and their platform for changes to the site could only do a great deal of harm to it. And that would be good for DDO

Ill end here for now :)
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro.

In this debate, imabench is reccomending that we change the status quo (if not seriously, then at least for debate's sake). Therefore he must demonstrate why his propositions would lead to a more positive outcome for the site in terms of electing a DDO President. I'll begin by responding to Pro's individual points. Due to character limits, I will ONLY respond to his points in this round. Considering it's a 5 round debate, I will use the next round to make my case on why I think this requirement could inhibit the democratic process, and/or more realistically prove frankly unnecessary.

1) Pro says that users can too easily create an alternative account to nominate themselves. The reality is that it takes just a few minutes to create an account, so Pro brings up a good point. However, considering how easy it is to create another account, then I don't see why someone who would go through the trouble of deception to create one alt. account wouldn't simply just create a second. It'd take them an extra two minutes.

Now, Pro says the point of having two nominations is to prevent a candidate from being nominated with a dummy account, and trying to use two dummy accounts would raise enough suspicion to realize the fraud that has taken place. However, wouldn't the same suspicion be raised with one new (dummy) account? Obviously the community at-large would notice a new member with a sudden interest in the site enough to nominate a particular member for presidency. The point is, I don't see how requiring 2 accounts solves this potential problem of dummy accounts, or creates a more favorable solution. I do think there are alternative options that I will address later on.

2) In his segment about why endorsements should be required at all, Pro points out that a lot of new members created forum topics and whatnot advocating their run for the presidency. Apparently for every legitimate candidate, he says there are three non-legitimate ones. I'm not sure how this is a contention in favor of the resolution. If his point is that DDO is being bombarded with campaign threads, that would not necessarily change even with a two endorsement requirement. It wouldn't be particularly hard to get two people to endorse you, so there would probably be just as many. Keep in mind there is a difference between endorsement so someone can run and actually voting. I might think someone should have the opportunity to run, but that doesn't mean I actually want them to win or plan on voting for them myself.

Another thing to consider are the numbers Pro posted. Right now innomen has 31 votes compared to jimtimmy with 6 and socialpinko with 5. Even if you combined the numbers of every other candidate (including all of those tied for 4th place), innomen would still be in the lead. This means more candidates on the ballot splitting the votes isn't really affecting the outcome. Furthermore, even if it were, voters could choose to change their vote and cast it for someone with a better chance at winning. This happens in real life politics all the time (hence why we are limited to a two-party system despite all our options).

3) Pro brings up problems with spamming, but doesn't explain how that would significantly decrease with his proposition. He says that if candidates had to be nominated to campaign, the amount of spamming of new topics posted to the forums would go down significantly. However that is mere speculation with little factual basis. If a n00b wanted to run but needed endorsements, they might just spam the forums instead with pleas to be nominated. They might still post their platform to specifically explain to people WHY they should be nominated or endorsed. The same amount of spamming (if not more) would likely occur.

Moreover, policing the forums has never been the intention of DDO. I haven't visited the Debate.org forums much lately, so I've been oblivious to the various threads Pro is talking about. However, I also tend to avoid other forums with the same monotonous topics (Religion) and likewise other members can do the same. Everyone on this site is entitled to create a thread about anything they want so long as it does not violate the TOS, regardless of whether or not people find their threads interesting. So, here we see that not only can Pro prove that "spamming" would decrease with this policy, but that the threads may not even constitute as spamming and in fact their threads may be legitimate and justified.

People create threads about all kinds of things. The mafia game threads might not be considered intellectual (as Pro says intellectual threads are the purpose and backbone of this community), yet some members enjoy them and participate. Likewise, if people want to participate in others' threads, that's their prerogative. I know I personally would ignore any thread about the presidential campaign made by Viper-King (or any of the 1-voters), and everyone else could do the same if they were truly disinterested.

4) Finally, Pro says that this system would eliminate some potentially good candidates, however it could eliminate a very large number of ill-informed candidates who spam the forums and their platform for changes to the site. A few things on this. First, Pro concedes that this might inhibit some potentially good candidates. As far as bad candidates, we don't need to inhibit them because they inhibit themselves. Obviously the community at large is not going to vote for a silly, inexperienced or unqualified President (we hope... but if they do, it's their decision to make). The fact that nobody has voted for them proves this.

Second, the site could benefit by exposure to the platforms and ideas of as many people as possible. Even if innomen wins, he might notice something in another's platform that he previously did not consider and employ it in his own administration. For this reason a sharing of knowledge and ideas can prove to be beneficial to the entire community at large.

Back to Pro for now...
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

1) Ill break down this point into two discussions in response to the con's arguments
- 1 - The point of mandating two endorsements means that now only the most committed fraudulent presidential hopefuls will go through with creating two dummy accounts just for endorsements. It is a second step that may (or may not, depending on the will of the person) deter them from continuing with running the campaign. Causing fraud candidates to create two dummy accounts will deter some people from hacking their way into the race.

- 2 - 1 dummy account would indeed be suspicious, but the odds that a newbie being promised a presidential position if he votes for someone cant be ruled out, it is like noob-sniping except a candidate would be sniping for an endorsement. with 2 endorsements though the odds of 2 brand new users endorsing a candidate they just met are much steeper, and if they joined at the exact same time and endorsed the same candidate they did not know at the same time then the odds the candidate is not creating dummy accounts is almost negligible.

2)
- 1 - " If his point is that DDO is being bombarded with campaign threads, that would not necessarily change even with a two endorsement requirement"

Number of campaign threads created by candidates who received multiple votes = 1
Number of campaign threads created by candidates who only received their own one vote and would most likely be at risk of not being allowed to campaign = 4 (3 for viper king 1 for tyler90az)
there was also a thread of someone asking who all was running because of the influx of one vote candidates, so that thread added to the others,

number of spammed threads because of write in voting = 5
5 less threads spamming the DDO forums isnt necessarily a huge benefit, but it is a benefit nonetheless

- 2 - Now it is true that the number of votes that could be freed up wouldnt have a large impact on the main race, but this endorsement is meant primarily to clean up the campaign not to channel votes to more legitimate candidates. Also since the actual candidates would not be impacted by the voting, then there would be no harmful impact, but that is only true for today.

If next election Innomen retired then that would leave jimtimmy and socialpinko, two candidates who minus the independent voting would CERTAINLY be affected by the new number of votes. The idea that the number of votes wouldnt affect the race is only true if Innomen were in the campaign, if he were to retire then that would create a very close race following his retirement and the number of independent votes would now have a very crucial impact. Imagine the Bush-Gore campaign, two completely new candidates following the retirement of Clinton, each ran a very close race where an independent possessed enough votes to change the outcome of the campaign. The same could happen on DDO if say Innomen were to retire and the main candidates were not jimtimmy and socialpinko.

3) If the endorsement deal were put in place, the number of potential candidates would be limited to only legit candidates. That means candidates who spam the forums would be greatly reduced, so all those threads advertising for their campaign would not be created since the candidates wouldnt be allowed to run.

Pro brings up a good point about how some people dont look at the threads anyway and that policing them is not a policy of DDO, however there would be a small benefit for users who do actually go on the DDO forum about DDO and that is a benefit nonetheless.

This policy would reduce spamming in the DDO forum about DDO, not all forums on DDO, I concede that. But the mafia thread is limited to the forum about games, not DDO. Also the mafia thread is enjoyable to a good number of users on DDO, the spammed campaigns however are not.

4) The Pro raises some good points about adopting platform ideas and how the bad candidates limit themselves. Really the only counter argument I can offer against this is the case where if an election was a very close race that came down to a very few number of votes, then these candidates voting for themselves would be potentially allowing the lesser candidate to win over the better candidate. (I know its not the best counter argument but its better than nothing and at least keeps this argument relevant)

:)
Danielle

Con

I'll respond to Pro's points (in bold).

1A. Causing fraud candidates to create two dummy accounts will deter some people from hacking their way into the race.

Since it only takes two minutes to create a dummy account, I don't think this will be a significant deterrence.

1B. With 2 endorsements though the odds of 2 brand new users endorsing a candidate they just met are much steeper,

The odds are not "much" steeper. It'd be hard to tell because n00bs don't know anything about DDO and may endorse anyone for any reason.

1C. ...And if they joined at the exact same time and endorsed the same candidate they did not know at the same time then the odds the candidate is not creating dummy accounts is almost negligible.

So I think you're saying that with 2 endorsements of n00bs, it'd be obvious that the n00bs were really just dummy accounts. As I said, this is not necessarily the case since you never know what n00bs will do. They're n00bs after all. Nonetheless, I've pointed out how easy it would be to spot dummy accounts (we also have mods who can check IPs), so "n00b sniping" in this regard is not necessary.

2A. Number of campaign threads created by candidates who received multiple votes = 1. Number of campaign threads created by candidates who only received their own one vote = 4... Some "spamming" can occur.

This ignores my point that people would create threads asking to be nominated, which would probably include some campaigning anyway. This statistic also doesn't explain how the two endorsement requirement would help or change the number of threads. As I said, DDO never intended to regulate who posts what forum topics. If you don't have an interest in the thread, don't read it. Pro seemingly agrees with these sentiments.

2B. ...There was also a thread of someone asking who all was running because of the influx of one vote candidates, so that thread added to the others.

This could easily happen regardless of the 2 endorsement rule, thus is irrelevant.

2C. ...But this endorsement is meant primarily to clean up the campaign not to channel votes to more legitimate candidates.

I don't see how 2 endorsements "cleans up the campaign." Pro has consistently ignored my points, including the fact that just because you endorse someone so they CAN run doesn't necessarily mean you intend on voting for them or want them to win. As such, I doubt many people would outright deny someone the right to run by saying they wouldn't publicly endorse them. Even if they did, I don't see the point or benefit. For instance, if izbo10 decided to run for President of DDO, I think we can all say he has no realistic chance at winning. As such, there is no need to weed out "silly" candidates. That is actually what is undermining the democratic process, and does the OPPOSITE of "cleaning up the campaigns" but rather provides more interference and unnecessary beaucracy.

2D. ...The idea that the number of votes wouldnt affect the race is only true if Innomen were in the campaign.

Pro brings this up directly after he says channeling votes is not the point of the resolution. Regardless, people shouldn't be forced to vote for front-runners. If they legitimately want to vote for themselves or someone who very likely won't win anyway, that should be their prerogative.


3A. If the endorsement deal were put in place, the number of potential candidates would be limited to only legit candidates. That means candidates who spam the forums would be greatly reduced, so all those threads advertising for their campaign would not be created since the candidates wouldnt be allowed to run.

This is nothing but repeating points that I have already negated. Pro (a) offers no proof whatsoever that the number of candidates would be reduced; (b) that the number reduction in candidates would be a good thing outside of POSSIBLY creating less campaign threads [which is speculative and not necessarily beneficial]; (c) that 2 endorsements somehow produces better quality or more "legitimate" candidates - especially because n00bs and/or friends can endorse people; (d) there might still be a lot of presidential-related threads, except about nominations instead of campaigns.

Pro is wasting my character space by having me repeat these things :(

3B. ...But the mafia thread is limited to the forum about games, not DDO.

And likewise presidential threads are limited to the DDO forum, just like mafia is in the Game forum.

4. Pro didn't respond to my 4th point, and I've already addressed what he said...

RE-CAP

1. Most nominations only require 1 endorsement; that is sufficient. I don't see the significant difference of 2, so no need to expand the requirements unnecessarily. That hinders, not stengthens, the democratic process.

2. This wouldn't eliminate bad candidates, and could stifle potential good candidates. We have no reason to believe the community would elect an overwhemingly "bad" president.

3. The site could benefit by exposure to the platforms and ideas of as many people as possible, so more campaign threads can prove to be beneficial to the entire community at large. It also hasn't been proven this would lead to less threads.

PROPISTIONS

If the community at large deems an endorsement to be beneficial, an alternative to the resolution can be to only require 1 endorsement; however, the endorsement must come from a member who has been active for more than 3 months. The logic behind this is that a member for 3 months has a better understanding of who a legitimate potential candidate could or should be, and would therefore have a more reasonable assessment than the endorsement of 2 people who are potential n00bs or don't know the going-ons of the site in detail.

CONCLUSION

I've proven that changing the process is unnecessary. It provides little benefit, so we shouldn't waste our time with pesky beaurcracy. Even if you think endorsements are important, I've also provided a better alternative to the proposed resolution, so you've no reason to vote Pro.

Back to ye, bench.
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

I will respond to some of Con's points and concede to a few others.....

1A) DDO still requires new accounts to be confirmed with a cell phone number for the account to be validated, its easy to create one account since almost everyone has a cell phone these days but creating a second account and trying to validate it with another different cell phone number would prove more problematic. This along with a new email address would also cause making a second dummy account more problematic.

1B) The odds may not be "much" steeper depending on the wordplay of the meaning of "much" but the odds of it happening would still be even less likely of not being a conspiracy

1C) Im not saying that two endorsements from new accounts automatically means they are fake accounts. I am saying that it would raise suspicion that they candidate may be using dummy accounts just for his endorsement.

2A) conceded

2B) conceded

2C) conceded

2D) This resolution is not meant to channel more votes towards front runners I am showing how in a close election these one vote candidates could hold the power to sway an election for a legit candidate which was contrary to what you said before about how the voting impact these independent candidates would have would "have no impact"

3A) conceded

3B) conceded

I admit that the Con has been kicking my *** on parts of this debate so I concede some of my points but still argue that it the two endorsement deal would be difficult for noob candidates to overcome because in addition to their account, they would need to create a second account for their first dummy vote, and then a third account after that for another dummy vote. in total requiring the candidate to create 2 new email accounts, submit 2 different cell phone numbers than their own, and not attract enough attention of the newly formed accounts that came out of nowhere to suddenly endorse the same candidate.

The benefit form this is small as the Con has proved, however it still does provide a benefit to this site which doesnt necessarily mean it should be thrown out completely....

Back to ye, Danielle :)

(btw, im really trying to be nice by not stubbornly sticking to my arguments and admitting you have some good points, dont make me regret it....)
Danielle

Con

1A. Pro says creating a second account and trying to validate it with a different cell number would prove problematic. Almost every single person I know over age 12 has a cell phone. Again, my argument here is that it really wouldn't be that difficult to use someone else's number to create another account. Furthermore, being able to vote because you've confirmed your account has nothing to do with the nomination process, so this is a moot point. Nonetheless, my main contribution here is that I don't think this stipulation will significantly deter the creation of dummy accounts in any way - ESPECIALLY if endorsement by two people is a requirement (as that is more incentive to create a dummy account).

1B. Extend my point that it'd be hard to tell whether or not n00bs would endorse random people, because n00bs don't know anything about DDO and may endorse anyone for any reason. Pro dropped this argument.

1C. I pointed out that n00b sniping in this regard is not necessary, because we have other ways to determine whether or not dummy accounts are fakes. Pro simply says suspicion would be raised if dummy accounts endorsed someone new, but this doesn't address my point that the suspicion raised could be tested and validated by mods who have access to IP checks.

2A, 2B, 2C. = Conceded to the Con. These are some of my strongest and most important points, so please extend them.

2D. Pro again misses the point. He writes, "This resolution is not meant to channel more votes towards front runners I am showing how in a close election these one vote candidates could hold the power to sway an election for a legit candidate..." Maybe, maybe not. All the resolution does is POTENTIALLY limit the number of candidates (which I've already argued is very likely to not happen anyway, AND could be a bad thing). If Pro hasn't proven that there would be less people running, then this whole point is moot anyway.

Pro continues, "...which was contrary to what you said before about how the voting impact these independent candidates would have would have no impact." Keep in mind that Pro previously said that swaying an election was NOT the purpose of this rule, so this is contradictory. I also specified that in THIS election the voting patterns would not change, considering innomen won by a landslide. I pointed out that even in close elections, people shouldn't be forced to vote for front-runners and should be able to vote for whomever they want (even if that person only receives 1 vote and will very likely not win anyway). That is essentially what Pro is arguing against - the opportunity to vote for someone who will very likely lose as opposed to more "legitimate" candidates. Remember, he is complaining that people who had no chance are allowed to run...

3A, 3B. = Conceded to the Con.

== CONCLUSION ==

Pro's concession of point 3A basically solidified the win for me. I will repeat the points I argued in the last round's point 3A --


Pro (a) offers no proof whatsoever that the number of candidates would be reduced; (b) that the number reduction in candidates would be a good thing outside of POSSIBLY creating less campaign threads [which is speculative and not necessarily beneficial]; (c) that 2 endorsements somehow produces better quality or more "legitimate" candidates - especially because n00bs and/or friends can endorse people; (d) there might still be a lot of presidential-related threads, except about nominations instead of campaigns.

Pro also completely ignored every point of my re-cap --

1. Most nominations only require 1 endorsement; that is sufficient. Expanding requirements hinders the democratic process.

2. This wouldn't eliminate bad candidates, and could stifle potential good candidates. We have no reason to believe the community would elect an overwhemingly "bad" president.

3. The site could benefit by exposure to the platforms and ideas of as many people as possible, so more campaign threads can prove to be beneficial to the entire community at large. It also hasn't been proven this would lead to less threads.

Finally, Pro dropped and ignored my potential proposition (which is a better alternative than his suggestion). We can only conclude that he agrees my proposition is better than his, so even he would not support the resolution.

Pro concludes that his main point still remains -- that the two endorsement deal would be difficult for noob candidates to overcome, because in addition to their account, they would need to create a second and third account for their dummy votes. This is nowhere near enough to affirm the resolution let alone negate all of my points. Pro has pretty much ignored all of my points, choosing this as his last leg to stand on. However, I've already argued against this sufficiently.

It would be easy to create fake accounts, even if you require additional cell phone numbers. Creating an acount takes literally less than two minutes. We have access to plenty of people with cell phones to borrow. One only needs to ask for the stats regarding how many fake double accounts there still are to see that people who really want to will not be deterred. More importantly, cell phone numbers validate voting on DEBATES, not in the presidential election. Plus, Pro never said that just because you endorsed someone for nomination means you necessarily have to vote for them, so these accounts need not the ability to vote to begin with, eliminating the cell phone problem. Moreover, I've repeated that we can use IP verification and other checks to spot obvious dummy accounts. Pro ignored this. Overall, this point is incredibly weak when you consider all of the other points in my favor anyway. For aforementioned reasons, this isn't even a strong point for the Pro.

As a final contention, I'd argue that the resolution is useless because the election allows you to vote for write-in candidates, who need not campaign or run at all therefore require zero endorsements yet can still win.
Debate Round No. 4
imabench

Pro

Ill make this quick since this is the last round...

1A) People do have access to a cellphone, however you would need 3 to create two dummy accounts, this would deter people because you would need to create two dummy accounts in addition to the actual account.

- First legit account - Needs one cell-phone number and one email address, something everyone has
- First Dummy account - Needs a different cell-phone number and email address, its easy to make another email address but temporarily getting access to another cell-phone might be an issue
- Second Dummy account - needs yet another email account and yet another cell phone number, you could make a third email account but finding access to a third cell phone would be increasingly problematic

1B) Conceded

1C) Conceded (I didnt know that but now I know :) )

2A, 2B, 2C) Agreed on my concession

2D) I can see where I may have been unclear now, the 2 endorsement process would have to be overcome for people to run for president without being endorsed, and this process would deter people from going through with this fraud. That would cause the final number of candidates to be lower for the actual election.

As for the second part of 2D, conceded seeing as how I have conflicting opinions of what this resolution would cause in voting patterns regarding the cadidates...

3A, 3B) conceded as agreed

Ill sum this up right here, I agreed that some of the original benefits of this idea would in fact not occur, and the Pro showed how and why, and that is what all of these concessions I have made are about, the benefits. But what would the cost of this policy be? less legit candidates would run since the 2 endorsement process would eliminate some of the fraud candidates, which right now is the only benefit of this policy I have left unless Ive missed a few.

The costs of this endorsement brought up by the Con is
1) It isnt necessary since this endorsement process wouldnt have an impact (but creating additional dummy accounts could be problematic as I have shown)
2) This process hinders the democratic process (but all you need to campaign is two legit endorsements in a site of 30,000+ people which if someone is legit enough could easily acquire)
3) Platforms that could benefit the site may never be brought to light (I concede this)

I thank Danielle for bringing up many good points regarding this debate and I thank the voters for reading :D
Danielle

Con

I'd just like to thank my opponent again for engaging with me in this debate :)

Now onto the final rebuttal...

1A. Pro repeats the same argument that it would be hard to create dummy accounts if you needed 2 people to sponsor you in order to run for President. I've negated this contention many times over.

- Almost everyone has a cell phone; it wouldn't be hard to borrow one or two to create a dummy account.

- Pro hasn't explained why this is necessary since cell phones are only required so you can VOTE ON DEBATES - not nominate someone for President. Pro dropped this argument of Con's.

- Since it only takes 2 minutes to create a new account, this would not be a strong deterrent.

- You wouldn't necessarily need a dummy account(s) as n00bs might agree to nominate you anyway.

- We can check for dummy accounts by having the mod(s) do IP scans.

At this point I think it's obvious that Point 1A has been negated many times over.

Pro conceded points 1B and 1C, as well as 2A, 2B and 2C.

2D. I explained in the last round that Pro hasn't proven that his proposal would mean there are less people running. Furthermore, I explained that less people running may even be a negative thing. Pro did not respond to any of these points. Instead, he repeated the same argument that having two people sponsor you would lead to less people running. I've already explained that this is not guaranteed or even likely in any way whatsoever. Since Pro did not prove otherwise, then you must extend my arguments detailing fully why this would likely not happen (many of the points can be found in my response to 1A). I shouldn't have to repeat or copy and paste my arguments for a third and fourth time. The gist of it is that it would not be difficult to get two sponsors.

Nevertheless, Pro never argues against the idea that less people running might be a bad thing, so extend that point as well. Pro also concedes to the second part of 2D. In other words, he acknowledges that people should be able to vote for whomever they want - even if they are the only person doing so. This means that if someone wants to vote for themselves despite not having a legitimate chance at winning, that's their prerogative. If Pro can't argue against that (and he hasn't), then we have no reason to extend the criteria for eligible candidates as Pro suggests.

Pro also conceded points 3A and 3B.

In conclusion, Pro says his proposition is based on a cost/benefit analysis.

Ironically, Pro argues against himself while detailing the costs. First he brings up that this process isn't necessary as it likely would not have an impact. Thus this hinders the democratic process unnecessarily, as it creates more bureaucracy. Pro says it shouldn't be hard getting 2 people to sponsor you out of 30,000 members on this site. I think it should be noted that there are nowhere near 30K active members on this site. I believe about 30 people voted in the Presidential election. Nonetheless, here we can see Pro arguing in favor of Con. If it would not be hard at all to get 2 people to sponsor you, then Pro has wiped out every contention he's made regarding this helping to deter people from running. If it's so easy to get nominated, then Pro agrees that this is a useless cost that would very likely be ineffective. Finally, Pro concedes that platforms that could benefit the site may not be brought to light.

Now we must look to the benefits. The only benefit Pro repeated was "eliminating some of the fraud candidates." Pro has already eradicated this benefit considering he admitted that it would not be hard to get two sponsors. Furthermore, he never responded to my points that (a) there are no such thing as 'fraud' candidates; (b) People including the "frauds" themselves should be allowed to vote for so-called fraud candidates; (c) none of this matters considering we allow write-in candidates, which require NO sponsors and NO campaign at all whatsoever.

Basically, I'm not really sure how you could vote anything but Con in this debate. All of Pro's points have been negated whereas all of mine have either been ignored or conceded in my favor.

Thanks again to imabench for this discussion, and good luck :)

Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
im surprised im only getting my a** kicked by 11 points, legit i thought this would be like 22-0 by now for Danielle
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Oh, I barely use the forums and don't post much. I do remember someone talking to me about elections in a message, but I assumed it was the 2012 race for whatever party you will support.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
yeah, Innomen is the president of DDO for the next 6 months, check the DDO tab under the forums...
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
We had an election?
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
falcon's vote summed it up quite nicely...
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
:O! PeacefulChaos voted for meh XD!
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
This isnt gonna end well at all....
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
because im really bored.....
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
Why do you always have 5 round debates o_O
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
sh*t this is gonna be a long debate.....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by renji_abarai 5 years ago
renji_abarai
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No one had sources
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro began this debate resting on the contentions of having more serious candidates to choose from and less spamming. Meanwhile Con showed how spamming would not decrease and possibly increase, how potentially good candidates would be left out, how any good ideas they would have brought would be lost, how the democratic process would be hindered, and many more. She also showed how many of Pros contentions contradicted themselves. This plus Pro's concessions grants Con a clear victory.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started off very strongly but ended up conceding almost the entire debate. Con's points that anyone should be able to create threads, and even if Pro's proposal was implemented, it still wouldn't reduce the number of election threads was enough to negate. Overall, Pro pretty much handed this win to Con by conceding a few points every round till they were all gone.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
imabenchDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I will just vote it a tie cause its even