The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
13 Points is too strict for new users.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 752 times Debate No: 56699
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)



Pro is too strict for new users. I stumbled across this site and was immediately fascinated by the various debates. I read a few and decided to "cast votes". Of course, I couldn't without registering. Most sites let you post immediately after you register. Some make you jump through and additional hoop with an instant verification process. So I thought I knew what to expect.

Most sites have a one sometimes two-step instant verification process.'s is a daunting 3-step process. The process is as follows:

1) Register with the site. (I used my Facebook login) Easy enough.

2)'s second hoop is much more invasive than most by making us register our cell phone carrier and phone number, then texting a code that has to be typed into the website.

3) Lastly, (I hope) one has to start 3 debates in order to be full member to even qualify one to vote!

Since debates can take several days, this means I won't be able to vote on the topic I signed up for since it will likely be over! I understand the first two hoops, but feel the 3rd is unreasonable. I also feel this website is missing out thousands of additional voters who simply are not willing to start 3 debates in order to cast a simple vote.


I accept. I look forward to this debate as I, too, do not yet possess the ability to vote on debates.

Good luck to the opposition.
Debate Round No. 1


Technically, you are my opposition but you agree with me. So I think that means I win? Woo-Hoo!


The user has not provided argumentation to support his point other than the description of the debate in the first round. Contrary to the sentiment expressed in Round 2 by the proponent of the resolution, you will see that in no part of my R1 acceptance did I agree with the resolution and render the debate moot.

Because the user provided no argumentation in his R2 speech, I really have nothing to argue. I will address a few reasons that you should vote con on this resolution, in brief, and I hope that you will all see that despite the argumentation I am going to give, the pro does not give you anything to vote on. Thus, you must default to the con.

A. Quality over Quantity.

Though it does not constitute part of his argument, in the description of the debate provided by the proponent of the resolution, he says that

" I also feel this website is missing out thousands of additional voters who simply are not willing to start 3 debates in order to cast a simple vote."

This is precisely the reason that we must disagree with the idea that the third restriction on new users is not too strict as he would have you believe. In many ways this restriction helps to protect from the presence of trolls. Doubtless there are always going to be trolls in an Internet community; however, the forcing of new users to participate in debates before they can vote on other debates provides protection against those ballots that are meant to "troll" and those that are not as thoughtfully considered.

B. Value Thoughtful Ballots

It is always nice when you get ballots on a debate where you can tell that the people have thoughtfully considered the issues and arguments presented in a debate. Making new users participate in debates before they are allowed to vote on debates means that they are going to get a feel for the value of those ballots, and they are going to be enticed to give better ballots themselves. If you debate in the real world, it is very easy to distinguish between those judges that do and do not have experience with the activity. Those ballots written by those who have experience with the event, and further have even participated in it, are the ones that advance you and the sport the most. We want new users to vote on issues once they have obtained a certain familiarity with the customs of and a respect for the activity.

C. Mis-Stating the Purpose.

It is worth noting that this is and not Those people who join this community are those that value and love the activity of debate. We appreciate rhetoric. We love a good argument. That is why we are here. It does not make sense to think that we are going to be missing a large number of users to a website where they come to debate, because we make them debate before they get to decide on other debates. I know I am here to type arguments--not ballots.

Again--readers--remember that the proponent of the resolution provided no arguments. This is an easy con vote, but I really wanted to do this, actually really interesting topic, justice.

Thank you! Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2


My apologies for not following the standard protocol on this site. It should be obvious from the topic that I am a brand new user. Not only am I new user, I've never participated in a formal debate. I'll do my best to make round three count as I clearly blew round two, not only in protocol but in misinterpretation.

My opponent does bring up good counter points that I have not considered but I still disagree overall.

A) Quality over quantity - While I appreciate quality over quantity as evidenced in my expensive micro-brew choices, there is something to be said for wondering how the general public feels about some of the topics listed on After reading a few debates and suddenly feeling the urge to cast a vote, I was perplexed why several topics only had one or two votes. I really wanted a larger sampling to see if my opinion on the subject matched others on this site. Am I in the majority or minority on subject x? One or two votes on a topic gives no indication where I stand with the majority of users on this site. Typically the larger the sample size is in a poll, the more accurate it is. [1]

B) Value Thoughtful Ballots - Opinions are like ____ - Everyone has one. While some are more thoughtful than others, one should not be forced to jump through hoops to cast a vote on a topic they find interesting. Many of the debates in here are garbage. "is Ferrari better than Lamborghini" has zero facts from either side of the argument. How about "Hulk is better than Superman" or "The Vampire Diaries Klaus Vs Stefan" - I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to have thoughtful opinions on many of the topics here. Does the average citizen really have to be trained in the art of debate in order to take a stand that Superman is clearly better than the Hulk? [2]

C) Mis-Stating the Purpose. - The purpose of this website is to bring together people of like mind. People who like to debate. So we agree on that much. But it is naive to believe that this site's numbers aren't lower due to it's strict policies. It would be easy to prove if the webmaster would make public the number of registered users vs the number of users with voting privileges. I'm sure the disparity would be eye-opening and would be easy to prove. I for one almost gave up on this site after I attempted three different times to cast a vote on a topic. I assure you, I'm not alone. Many people lack patience in today's 'Now' society. To force new members to participate in three debates before being allowed to vote is akin to putting the cart before the horse. [3]

D) Context - Voting on this site should not be more difficult than voting for the President of the United States, which only requires filling out one form. [4]

Thank you for your time and consideration. Vote Pro!



First, some overview points. While it is excusable that the proponent has not been involved in a formal debate, there are a few things that are seriously lacking here, and these lead us to the the overall conclusion that we must oppose the resolution.

I. The proponent gives us no case to stand on. It is his duty to affirm the resolution and it is his duty to prove it correct. If he is unable to do so, then you must vote to oppose the resolution. As my opponent has provided no case to prove that is too strict in its rules for new users, you must vote for the con.

II. It is important to note that because I am the only one who has presented a case, as my opponent has already been shown to lack one, it makes it appear to the voter that I am the one who has the burden of proof. I just want to further emphasize that the burden of proof lies on those affirming the resolution. As such, even if I lose all of the points on my side of the round, I still have a case to stand on, and he none. Therefore you must vote for the con.

III. Now, let us get into the argumentation here. There are some overarching themes in the argumentation of my specific points, so I may address them as such in a cross-application of those arguments. I hope you will bide with me.

A. Quality Over Quantity
1. The Counter Argument: More is Better
a. In his attack on my first argument against the idea that is too strict, my opponent argues that it is better to have a greater sampling in a poll. He provides Wikipedia sourcing in his claim that a poll with larger samples is more accurate. However, there are three problems with this argument:
1. Misstating the Purpose
The first of the three reasons that you should disregard this argument is that the opponent is, once again, misunderstanding the reason that we have public votes on a debate. is not a polling center. We are not Rasmussen Reports. The design here is not to come to a realization that the majority of people believe in stance x on issue y. I look forward to the opportunity to debate on the sides of issues that I would not normally agree on, and I will vote for the better debate in any circumstance. is not a record keeper to see how many people on one side of an issue rally together to amass points for the side that argues for what they believe in. In all cases, the design is to vote for that person who did the better debating and who made the better arguments. There is a reason that the check-boxes for "Who did you agree with before the debate?" and "Who did you agree with after the debate?" [1] are worth no points in the scheme of things. Thus, when the opponent says that we want more people to register their opinions on issues by voting in the debates we have,he is damaging the entire purpose for There is reason that you are able to vote in polls as soon as you have completed the first two tasks in registering, but are not able to decide who won a debate. Because that is what a ballot says: who won the debate. A ballot does not register an opinion on an issue.
2. Statistics
I am not trying to be nit picky, but I am a mathematics major, and the claim that in all cases, a larger poll provides more accurate results is completely false. If it were indeed the design of ballots for debates to accurately reflect the feelings of the populace on an issue, would need to be far more strict in its access to voting to prevent people form registering an account just to rage on an issue like Abortion or Health Care Reform and then going along their merry way without any productive feedback, etc. The amount of bias in these polls would render the results unusable and unrepresentative. Response bias is particularly damning in this idiom. [2]
3. Does Not Increase Response
For lack of a better way to phrase it, some issues just aren't as sexy as abortion. Increased user access to voting does not increase the number of people who are going to vote on an obscure topic. It just doesn't work that way--sadly.

B. Value Thoughtful Ballots
1. The Counter-Argument: Everyone has an Opinion
In the argumentation against my second point, we get an amalgamation of the misunderstanding of the purpose of and a critique of the subjects debated and a clear misunderstanding of how to rate superheroes.
a. Please cross reference my argumentation in sub-point 1 under Misstating the Purpose and the following argumentation in considering the second point of contention in this debate.
1. Subject Matter--Cross-Reference
Regardless of subject matter, the idea of a ballot is to register a decision on who won a debate not on the opinion for an issue. Case closed. Whether or not n argument seems frivolous, it still deserves consideration other than a troll ballot that results in a perfectly eloquent debater losing because he was defending an unpopular viewpoint.
2. Superheroes
Seriously? Marvel rules the comic universes and thus Superman is innately inferior. Case-in-point: X-Men.
C. Mis-Stating the Purpose
a. Again the argument about purpose is relevant. Further let us address some other issues.
1. Personal Experience
I can appreciate the fact that you almost gave up on this site because you were not allowed to vote instantly. I get that. However, the process of going thorough this debate and learning the customs and the structures will, hopefully, make you realize exactly why we need the three introductory debates. It isn't enough to say that you agree with a position. You have to be able to speak to why you believe what you believe. And that is what asks people to do. We bring together people of a like mind who recognize that debate is a beautiful thing, but that does not mean that we all agree on similar principles about life. We must be able to vote for those who advocate an opinion other than our own, and your advocating for an opinion other than that is frightening for the mission that has.
2. It's Hard
I agree. There is probably a disparity between the number of accounts registered and the number that are able to vote. But does that mean that we should give up the principles that lead us to debate? No. We have to recognize the fact that we are not here to register opinions. I cannot state enough this simple argument: We are not here to cast a vote in a poll. There is valuable experience gained in debating that informs the way that we look at debate and the way we see argumentation as a whole. We need to see that more often, and that is why we all must participate in three debates before we can cast a vote.
3. Less impact
The impact of allowing fewer users full privileges is far less than the impact of denigrating the mission of and the impact of getting ballots that read only "HULK SUX!!!!!"

D. Cross apply relevant arguments about nature of voting.

I feel that I have been rather long winded. I have not provided evidence for these arguments, because I don't feel that, in a conceptual debate like this, it is valuable other than the two sources I have provided. Please recognize that a lot of this debate came down to conceptualizing what it is we are here to do on and consider that in casting a vote.

[1] I urge you to look at the top of this debate where you have your ballot to fill in.

Thanks to all! Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Manastacious 3 years ago
I was really looking forward to an actual debate here. Sigh.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
lol yeah. And even if he did there's something called "playing devil's advocate"
Posted by SebUK 3 years ago
Seriously? He never said he agrees with you , you just wasted a debate
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Dang it... I was literally pressing accept and someone took it. Best of luck to you both. Pro, if for whatever reason Con doesn't give a good debate, I'd be all for accepting this if you wished to do it again at some point.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by doomswatter 3 years ago
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: Con made a solid case for keeping things the way they are. The nail in Pro's coffin for me was Con's argument that this is, so if people aren't here to debate, they shouldn't be here. I believe Con is right in arguing that the current procedure prevents an influx of trolls and people just wanting to support their personal opinion rather than analyze both sides of a debate. The mods already have enough to keep up with without the massive increase in reported votes that would occur.
Vote Placed by inaudita 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The reasoning was batter, simple.
Vote Placed by Envisage 3 years ago
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 simply did not provide the arguments to fulfil his burden of proof. He did a relatively decent job of rebutting Con, but his only solid line of argumentation, which was from getting a large sample size, was it self relatively well refuted by Con with his pointing out the lack of statistics and quality of votes.
Vote Placed by Themba 3 years ago
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: Con provided a vastly superior version of the 'mission of ddo'. Pro says that the website is too strict, Con refuted by saying the purpose was to avoid trolls and to provide a comprehensive RFD. Pro made a new case about sampling only to refuted again by Con in terms of objective and bias voting. Furthermore, Pro states that Votes cast are usually useless because the topic is too simplistic, Con responded that the point of voting is not to vote based on opinions but on the content of the debate as to who won. Lastly Con was even victorious in Mis-stating the purpose premise in that Con showed that you should be aware of the structure of debates and how to weigh in arguments instead of voting based on your 'opinion'. Pro's case was weak and without proper XYZ reason. The argument clearly goes to Con