The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points Should Make it Easier for People to Vote

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 99464
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




This debate is intended to be very short and brief. Therefore, there is a character cap of 5,000 characters, and will only be 1 round. Pro (myself) and Con will have only 24 hours to post their argument.

Main Argument:
Debate.Org is a website flourishing with many insightful debates and discussions on current events and pressing issues in society. However, due to the lesser amount of activity on this website, we have seen record-low voter turnouts, with a fair amount of debates being declared a tie due to no voters, or merely possessing only one or two votes.

Comparatively, debates from approximately 7 or 8 months ago were crowded with commentary from spectators and plentiful of voters. The debate, "The swearing filter on DDO should be removed," had 123 comments and around 22 voters. However, in this day and age, most debates either have one voter or no voters at all.

People are able to vote only if they give their phone number. This method is fairly strict being that there is not alternate method of registering to vote, and may seem compromising to people who do not wish to give out personal information like their personal cell phone number. I do believe that there should be more ways to register as a voter such as submitting one's email and give them a verification code, and in addition, voting will only be open to those that are fairly active on the website, to prevent bots or alts from being able to vote. Thankfully, in the event that an alt, bot, or overly-biased person were to vote, the moderation team is very capable and responsible in preventing voter fraud.

There are many benefits of opening voting to more people such as awarding debaters a win that they fairly deserve. The less voters there are and the less spectators are present in debates, the less likely debaters will prefer this debating site over others, such as Debate Island. If Debate.Org cannot open debating to more people, the website is likely to get more inactive and be deemed obsolete compared to more active debating websites. Additionally, allowing more people to vote will combat biased voters. Though voters have to write "Reason For Voting" alongside their vote and though the moderators are persistent in removing votes which are clearly biased or underwritten, the lack of variety in our voters may close ourselves off to having to appease to voters who are biased or have a personal preference towards one debater.

Voters are a crucial part of Debate.Org, and if the website fails to attract more voters due to its strict policy of who can vote, debates will be less populous with spectators and will be limited to few, if any, voters at all.


Hello Cosmojarvis,
I will be taking the con side, arguing against the resolution. Good luck, Cosmojarvis!
Main Argument:
Although it is not good to see lower voter turnouts, and is concerning, I believe it is no cause to lower the standards. Think of the potential consequences that could arise from removing some or all of the voting qualifications. Instead of having only those who are experienced debaters (three debates) voting, removing this requirement could cause many non-serious voters to cast biased votes, or "vote bomb".
Although it would be nicer to have many voters, we would risk causing a degradation of the quality of material on When debating, we should consider the opinion of one person who is vetted and experienced more valuable than the opinion of one who is not.
In addition , there are other ways to attract voters that are not so dangerous. For one, Debate,org could advertise its debate voting feature more. It could also remove the most privacy invasive requirement that asks for a phone number
Even though it is not ideal to have few voters, it is best not to reduce quality standards.
Debate Round No. 1


The first point Con makes is that opening the voting system to more people increases the risk of including biased voters. On the contrary, I believe that opening voting will diversify what types of voters we have, outnumbering the amount of potentially biased people there are and might be if we open up voting. Additionally, as I have said before, because Debate.Org has such able and responsible moderators and the report system put in place to report potentially biased votes, and because of the "Reason For Voting" which is mandatory for all debates when voting, voters must give statements specifying why they voted for someone. They cannot provide vague and unspecific statements like "I voted for Pro because he provided a better argument." Moderators will remove votes for these explanations because even though they might slightly explain the reason behind one voted, it is too unspecific.

The second point Con makes is that a better solution to resolving the problem with low voter turnout is to advertise voting more. On the contrary, I feel that this will have little to no effect. I am certain that most, if not all people, are aware that anyone with the proper registration can vote. I am certain that creating a campaign to teach people to vote will be ineffective, especially being that this is a debating website reliant on public voters. I believe that many people have considered voting, but have been prevented from doing so because they did not want to give out personal information such as their home or personal phone number.

Con ends his argument by saying that "Even though it is not ideal to have few voters, it is best not to reduce quality standards."

Yes, I do believe that we should not open voting to everyone, with little to no restriction. It will open the website to corruption and voting fraud. And there will be a point when it may become too extensive and tough for our moderator team to handle, no matter how great they are at their work. However, I do believe that the low voter turnout is a problem that we must tackle. If we remain to keep the strict restrictions on voting, not only will many thought-provoking and groundbreaking debates go unnoticed, and a winner remaining undecided, but the failure to gain any new voters, the website itself might spiral down into ruin from inactivity, as people who seek greater debating opportunities will flock to other debating websites such as DebateIsland.


I agree with Cosmojarvis that "low voter turnout is a problem that we must tackle." However, as I previously stated, I believe that there are better ways to do this than doing what would probably lead to a large collection of meaningless voters, troll voting, and vote bombing. Even with a highly capable moderation team, there may just be to many cases to handle.
Pro says that, "there should be more ways to register as a voter such as submitting one's email and give them a verification code...". When you sign up on, you already give your E-mail address so that you can see notifications. The moderators need a method to hold voters to accountability. Making voters give a phone number is a way to make sure that they are serious voters.
Pro also says that, "I am certain that creating a campaign to teach people to vote will be ineffective...". I am not so certain. I think that a diligent, well designed campaign to teach people how to vote and streamlining the look, appeal, and process of registering would increase the number of voters.
I think that by doing nothing about this problem , risks losing popularity to other debate forums. However, there are other ways to boost usage that do not lower the quality standards of this great website.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NukeHappy51 1 year ago
Ironically, NO ONE VOTED
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Why didn't you make it easy to vote by not requiring an rfd?
Posted by subdeo 1 year ago
Not sure I know what those comments are supposed to mean.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
Posted by rileyrosa24 1 year ago
Posted by subdeo 1 year ago
congratulations, Cosmojarivis! Thanks for the great debate. now it s up to the voters.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
I believe that a campaign to inform people about voting is ineffective because I'm certain all people on this website are aware of voting and its importance on Debate.Org, being that this website mainly focuses on debating a voting, aside from its forums.
Posted by subdeo 1 year ago
@Cosmojarvis: I think we have to use round two to open it up for voters, we have to use it in some way. We could just "skip" it by using it to congratulate one another if you want to. What do you think?
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
You can edit the debate after you've posted it, as long as you do so before someone accepts it.

Also, I agree with you. Just look at how many debates I've done where it ended in a tie. Every single one is from no one voting.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
Thank you for agreeing with my opinion. I hope that this debate may open up new discussion on voting guidelines and requirements, and may influence change in
No votes have been placed for this debate.