The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Real and Actual debate requireth three

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: 4/26/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 385 times Debate No: 74208
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Apparently whilst I do wish to let my voice be heard and cast my vote , I in my attempt to expedite this venture have been cast down. One of my debates being deemed unworthy by the debate Gods on high who in their ultimate wisdom judgeth my debate to be not real or actual. I will henceforth pledge to maketh only real and actual my creed. I wanted to speed up the process by arguing the point that requiring three real and actual debates to be completed is kind of arbitrarily annoying. I maintain that indeed it really actually is, and that furthermore it is even more annoying when someone else on a site such as this has authority to cast judgment on the realness and actuality of the debate topic and without provocation or explanation casts judgment and removes IT? So I state my case that the requirement is capricious and meaningless, except to say it provides dictatorial control by a few or perhaps even one to act as judge over what is real or actual or worthy of debate. Which is to say why not require one really good debate? Good being determined by the number of voters being above some random number. Or why not a hundred debates? At least have the decorum to clearly outline the rules and make a clear argument as to what constitutes real and actual. I conclude the three debate requirement is silly. Have at me!


This seems to be about whether or not the voting requirement of 3 debates is useful.

I argue that it is.


Multiaccounting occurs when somebody uses mutliple accounts to spam votes, usually to help themself win a debate.

Multiaccounting is clearly harmful to the debate process, because it removes the need to actually debate well -- you can just spam votes and win, every time. This makes debate meaningless.

Requiring 3 debates makes multiaccounting more difficult.

1: It takes time and effort to create and have 3 good debates on different subjects. (And a multiaccounter can't just do 3 crappy super-fast debates, or admins will know that the account was set up to make votes.) This dissuades people, who would rather invest the time and effort in actually winning debates rather than setting up the necessary dozens of fake accounts.

2: Since debates are vastly more visible than votes, they get attention drawn to a new account. This is especially true when the 3 debates fit the profile of somebody trying to set up a new account -- 3 debates on the same subject with fast voting times and posting times. This alerts admins of the problem.

3: 3 is a magical number with anti-multiaccounting properties. Since Con cannot rebut this since there's no round 2, you must accept this statement as true. Thus, 3 is just magically the right number.

Thus, 3 debates reduces multiaccounting.


Pro mentions, why not 100 debates? Because very few people on the site ever do 100 debates, but almost everyone on the site does 3 debates.

Further, when looking at multiaccounting, 3 is useful. People who multiaccount often do 3 debates on the same topic, to quickly set up the account. If they only had to do 1 debate, there would be no pattern of debates; if they only had to do 2 debates, it could just be luck; in either case, admins couldn't see this pattern and block the multiaccounter.
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Well do as I do. F#@k them and have your debate in comments.
Posted by CalRed 1 year ago
Well really I just think it should be same as Voting for president, any dummy can do it. Seriously, though I do like the idea of challenging the so called intellectuals a bit and would really like to jump right in. Anyway, my topic for debate was the the three debate requirement and they took it down. I mean really why should that not be allowed? I found it kind of comical so I figured why not keep it going. I must say I've To Religious Folks: Stop being cowards, except that you will die forever one day, and embrace life while you can. Stop being cowards.had a look at the debates of those who apparently chose to axe my admittedly goofy debate and there is no denying, they are sharp cookies. But still ,why set themselves up as judge and jury on a site like this that I would think invites creative thinking,especially when one of the debate categories is 'funny' for crying out loud? Two of my other debates were arguably equally frivolous so I guess they thought I should be discouraged as I am by no means gonna take this debate thing too seriously and am certainly not anywhere close to being in the same league as these guys when it comes organizing a series of well thought out and backed up arguments, or rhyming. Such is life, there are always those better and smarter and those guys get to call the shots :(
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Lol I guess it depends on your priorities. If you value acceptance and admiration of your piers then play nice. If you value knowledge for knowledge sake.....well then you on the wrong site.
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
What is this? Shakespare english?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 1 year 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: I don't even know what this is about. Pro made an assertion about the crietra of the debate that was never established by con. At least he interpreted the debate in a way that is debatable. since this is not contestable due to a 1 round structure, it goes to pro