The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points should NOT have voting rules.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2016 Category: Technology
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 700 times Debate No: 84898
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Rules: Round 1 is acceptance, Round 2 is arguments WITHOUT rebuttals, Round 3 is rebuttals and finishing statements. Breaking rules is subject to forfeiture.

CLARIFICATION: This argument is for whether or not should force you to complete three debates before you can vote on any debate.

Have fun, and good luck.


I accept, and await Pro's arguments. Good luck to you, pro.

Please note, my next rounds will be quite short because of the 1,000 character limit placed on this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


My argument is as follows:

There should not be a requirement for voting. This limit forces people to make arguments before they can actually learn how to do it. If you cannot see a good way to make an argument, then how do you make such? This rule leads to 'accept this argument so that I can vote' debates that just waste time. It forces people to sign up to just to get their ideas out. This idea scares out potential Debaters, and seems to add an air of 'premiumness'(?) to older users. Granted, I see the use behind it. It stops users from spamming new accounts to vote for themselves, but the way they did it was wrong. They should have it be something like "have an account for X days" or something. What is more irking is the fact that they only tell you this rule after you come up with a vote and have it typed out. The idea is a sound one, but the way they applied it was all wrong.

Your move.


Thanks for the argument, Pro.

Inexperienced Voters
Before being able to vote on debates, voters should first have experience debating, and have others vote on their debates first. The reason for this is many newer debaters might vote based upon their own personal bias, not who had the better arguments, better conduct, etc. These voters hold a higher risk for making arbitrary votes, “trolling,” or voting for wrong person, as they have not proved their devotion to this website by completing 3 debates.

Self Voting
Different members could easily abuse this system, voting for themselves in different debates. With no debate requirement for voting, debaters could easily create another account, vote for themselves, corrupting and ruining the voting system. This would lead to a high number of people leaving this website due to unfair voting, and the inability to win against a cheater without cheating yourself. Resulting in a huge loss of pageviews, the website would be forced to close.
Debate Round No. 2


First, I would like to thank you for your time arguing with me. This is my first debate, so if you have any concerns/comments, just send me a message. I appreciate constructive criticism!
Now for my rebuttal.

Sure, somebody might vote on their own bias. Sure, somebody might vote arbitrarily. But that is what happens in the real world, too! People make a vote on their own ideals. That is why we need convincing arguments. To SWAY their vote from the idea they first had to our own ideas. That is what should be. Convince the masses, not the leaders.

I acknowledge the facts in this spot. I am not necessarily saying that you are wrong, but that there is a better 'right'. For one, the site already limits the debater to one account per e-mail and phone, making it tough for somebody to cheat. I think this in and upon itself is a big enough safeguard. After all, who has two phones? I just think that they should put a different activity requirement.


Thanks pro

Inexperienced Voters
This website is based around debates, and debating skills. Voting upon one's personal bias would alter this, no longer making who wins based on debating skills, but instead who has the more popular opinion. It is very hard to convince people to change their opinion on something they are stubborn about, and they me disregard arguments. Also, a random vote that is not even based around opinions would cause many to leave this website, because of unfair voting.

Self Voting
It is not very hard to create multiple email addresses. Two phones are not needed to create two email accounts. This would still be easily abusable, as someone could create a lot of email accounts, create accounts with those email accounts, and write the password/username down.

Vote con
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ofyuff 2 years ago
Good Game, Codename_X. I would like to thank you for having this debate with me, even if you lost.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: elijah452// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I first agreed with CON in that this website SHOULD have voting rules, but PRO brought up some good points that made me change my opinion on the matter. PRO's words ring true when the excess of voting rules benefits making new accounts and joke debates just to vote, and the self vote abuse. All in all the debate rules don't stop spammers or trolls. Sorry about that CON but I think PRO has a better argument. Neither side gave sources so it is tied.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter appears to have mixed up the sides. Con made the arguments the voter cites, not Pro. (2) Conduct is not explained. (3) The voter insufficiently explains arguments. They must analyze points made by both debaters.
Posted by Ritik33jain 2 years ago
Umm..I think even the 3 debate rule can't stop people from spamming their own debates with votes in the long run..think about it
A guy on this website could easily reach the 3 debate status with 5-6 new accounts under a week and since it's possible..I think it must be happening around here
And even the people can form alliances here..'you vote for me ..I vote for you' kind of stuff..So it's already a lot like the real world ..i suppose

And I agree with the idea that 3 debates should be more period complete 3 debates to earn voting privileges for a specific amount of time
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by elijah452 2 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: (I agreed with CON before the debate.) (After the debate I agreed with PRO. Rules do seem good but only cause people to break them and add more spam to the site.) (Both sides had good conduct.) (Both sides had good spelling and grammar.) (PRO made a much more convincing arguments overal. While some of CON's argument's were good, a few were largely opinionated and fallacious. Which was why I gave the point to PRO.) (CON)"the inability to win against a cheater without cheating yourself. Resulting in a huge loss of pageviews, the website would be forced to close" ( So somehow without this one thing the site would inexplicably get worse and be forced to close? CON is using the slippery slope fallacy.) (PRO)"For one the site already limits the debater to one account per e-mail and phone, making it tough for somebody to cheat" (PRO makes a strong argument, CON virtually ignores the argument and says (CON)"This would still be easily abusable". Without giving a counter