Debate.org should NOT have voting rules.
Debate Rounds (3)
CLARIFICATION: This argument is for whether or not Debate.org 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.
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 Debate.org 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.
Thanks for the argument, Pro.
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.
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.
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 Debate.org 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.
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.
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 debate.org accounts with those email accounts, and write the password/username down.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by elijah452 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
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
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.