The Instigator
Charlie_Danger
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Resolved: Possession of Multiple DDO Accounts is Sometimes Just

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 12 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,027 times Debate No: 9368
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (12)

 

Charlie_Danger

Pro

This is just a fun and unstructured debate.

I affirm.

1) Justifying Vote-Bombing
As the status quo provides, there is not a current system of voting that prevents vote bombing, otherwise known as the act of unfairly voting on a debate. Because of this, allowing a separate account to fix these injustices is at least fair, taken that it is uncertain how many people can or will take place in the voting. If DDO actually got around to editing the "Votes" tab, then there could at least be a sense of public shaming that might prevent this, but as it is, multiple accounts are the simplest and most effective means of preventing and balancing vote bombing.

2) Maintaining Internet Security
The points in this argument are two-fold. First, allowing multiple accounts lets users stay secure in their internet identities, and second, they have a place to go if one account is compromised. Since the growing threat of stalkers and internet hunters in conjunction with an extreme decrease in internet security thanks to companies and organizations like Google (and if it isn't google, then it is pending purchase from google),plagues our society, allowing multiple accounts is wise and beneficial to the internet and real-life community. Also, when an account is hacked or compromised, the likeliness of returning to the same account is low at best. Things change when you're account has been toyed with, believe me, I know. Because this, like stalkers, is a growing threat, we must affirm this debate.

3) Topicality
Like I explained in the title of this debate, I'm not saying that all people should be able to own multiple accounts, or that it is just 100% of the time. I just think that it should not be a strict law on the site, simply because there are so many, so frequent, and sad situations where people get banned for doing something completely justifiable.

It is for these three reasons that I affirm. Thank you for accepting the debate, and good luck.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate and will offer my counterpoints.

1. Justifying Vote bombing

A. Two wrongs do not make a right. Engaging in counter vote bombing is still vote bombing.
B. Allowing people to make alternates would make it harder to distinguish bad accounts from good accounts.
C. Vote bombing can be countered legitimately with the "Cleaner" method, in which many people vote fairly on each debate, watering down the bias of vote-bombing.

2. Maintaining Internet Security

My opponent's point is meaningless. One can easily construct a new account once the first one has been compromised. There is no reason to have two at once. Having excess unused accounts will lead to bandwidth problems.

3. Topicality

Whether or not the resolution is affirmed depends on my opponent's arguments. None of my opponent's three arguments are good enough reasons to allow multiple accounts, or to even add leniency to the rule.

*****

Why should this multiple account rule be as stringent as it is?

1. It helps reduce the number of unused accounts on DDO
2. It levels the playing field and makes it easier to deter malicious wielders of multiple accounts.
3. Applying leniency makes the line too blurred, forming a slippery slope in admin or moderator judgment. They are busy enough as is and are the only ones who can ban accounts anyway.

The above three reasons, combined with the fact that none of my opponent's arguments adequately justify excess accounts, negates the resolution.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Charlie_Danger

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and would like to share my feelings of honor to debate the great Kleptin. Best of luck to you, my friend.

1) Justifying Vote Bombing
A. [ONE] Ahh, but three rights make a left, and it is important to know which direction you are going.
[TWO] If that wasn't enough to convince you, than remember that if someone is counter-vote bombing, they are definitionally NOT vote bombing.
[THREE] Even then, if a person is vote bombed, and then votes with the other account to balance it out make it seem that nothing happened at all, thus justifying the voting.
B. My opponent does not define nor warrant what a "bad account" is. In fact, who are we to decide if an account is "bad"? It is unfair. ReganFan is an example, he thinks that any non-conservative user is a bad one, whereas some Liberal users think vice versa. There is no way to measure what a bad account is, making his argument fall.
C. Though the cleaner method can sometimes work, it does not always. Moreover, it will never work as effectively as the counter-voting method. Just like how diluting something is less efficient than removing it entirely.

2) Internet Security
[ONE] This is not true. If someone's account is compromised, the account will still exist. Even when closed, email addresses and phone numbers are permalinked into accounts. This means that you would have to make an entire new email and phone number to link to the new account, which, for some members (which is all I need to prove as the resolution states) is impossible or non-pragmatic.
[TWO] There won't be any practical bandwith problems, taken that there are tens of thousands of users on DDO.
[THREE] In fact, stemming off of argument two, allowing more accounts will increase site popularity, since people tend to join bigger/better organizations and websites.

3) Topicality/Overview
Cross-apply this to the entire case: I only have to prove one situation in any of these contentions to affirm.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now offer my rebuttal.

My response will take on the following format: I will first state the point that my opponent makes (as he has organized in his last response by number and letter) and will show the logical fallacy.

1A. [ONE]- Equivocation Fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Knowing the right direction is logically irrelevant. Vote bombing is an immoral act regardless of the way it is done.
1A. [TWO]- False. A new account used for counter vote bombing could be used for outright vote bombing as well. This point is moot.
1A. [THREE]- False. Moderators and admins exist, there is no need to take matters into your own hands. This is violation of the TOS.

B. Strawman Fallacy http://www.nizkor.org...
Obviously by "good" account, I mean one that is only used for counter-vote bombing and by "bad", I mean one used for regular vote-bombing. My point stands and my opponent's irrelevant rebuttal about relativity should be dismissed.

C. False. The Cleaner method is more effective because it follows the TOS to correct injustice. Furthermore, a moderator deleted account has all his votes removed from all debates. See 1A[THREE]

2. [ONE] My opponent has been unclear about the definition of "compromised", I define it as "banned". The new account would only be used to notify moderators in case of emergency (new emails are easy to make, new phone number is not required). If you are banned, you should not return at all, as per TOS.

2. [TWO] And most of them are inactive accounts.
2. [THREE] Site popularity is determined by activity. My opponent's proposal would yield even more abandoned accounts. Inactive members make no difference and my opponent's point is moot.

My opponent conceded his third point and I have countered all his others. The resolution is negated. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Charlie_Danger

Pro

In the miniscle characters remaining, I will crystalize the important arguments in this debate, and then summarize the round. (a la LD Debate 2AR)

In the first contention (C1), part A, Kleptin's only tangible argument is refering to admins and the ToS, which must be disregarded, since the point of this debate is to prove that admins need not be used. He is using his own "strawman" type of fallacy.

C1, part B, stands. The point I made was misconstrued by Kleptin. I am simply stating that any and every account ought to be treated equally. Some people will only go online as frequently as (theoretically) I would on my second account, meaning that both accounts are, in the eyes of the site, equal.

C1 part C stands for the same reason that C1 part A does. In the debate realm, we think hypothetically. (See my comment for more clarification if needed) This means that arguments relating to the real world system should be ignored.

C2, [ONE] By comprimised, I mean hacked or unwillingly violated. This is the exact term that Phil used when we discussed my "Racist Debate". Nevertheless, cross-apply the C1 part A defence.

In the rest of C2, there is really no relativaty or significance. The amount of activity on a website isn't what you are voting on in this round.

The issue that you as a judge must look at is my C3/O.V. This was ignored by Kleptin both times, and proves to be my greatest defence. I only have to prove one scenario to be just to win your vote, and here is one of many:
1) Sam is a good DDO'er. He never bothered anyone, always voted with just RFD's, and was a good sport in lost debates. One day, his account is hacked by a neighbor. The neighbor posts porn and racist comments all over his profile and debates. He cannot post an apology or explanation on DDO, since his password was changed. Good thing he had a duplicate account, which he uses to replace. He posts an apology, and has his neighbor arrested.

Thus, you affirm.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate and shall now conclude.

A1: My opponent is incorrect in his judgment. My opponent's claim that I beg the question is wrong because I am arguing the morality of multiaccounts based on ToS, I am arguing the morality of using multiaccounts to fix votebombing with more votebombing. Thus, this point cannot be dismissed.

A2: Throughout the entire debate, we have been talking about multiaccounts for the purpose of fixing vote bombing, not for actual debating, thus the audience should dismiss this point. However, my opponent has no outstanding reason why 2 accounts are needed when 1 is just as suitable.

A3: My references to admins and the ToS do not beg the question because my point was to show that there are alternatives to resolving vote bombing issues other than the creation of multi accounts. This has not been addressed, my point stands.

B1: In that case, you can make a new account when the hacking or violation takes place, then have it closed. Thus, you are not owning multiple accounts at any time.

B2&3: Incorrect as my opponent started by making points about popularity and how multiple accounts would benefit. My arguments stand.

C: I have responded to "Topicality" but my opponent did not understand it. I assumed his "cross application" in the next round meant a concession. To clarify though, his argument rests on the assumption that owning multiaccounts is justifiable, which begs the question. As per his scenario, he should only have one account. Should that account be compromised, he no longer has that account. He can make another one to apologize and ask admins for aid. He gets another account back, his temporary one is unjustifiably held, and should be closed by the admin. This situation works just as well.

My opponent has failed to find a single justification for owning multiple accounts. All alternatives I suggested work as well. I negate the resolution. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
No offense.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Actually, Metz is an LD debater.

BUT, I would describe him more specifically (and any LD debater who is currently in the NFL WILL recognize...) as a Novice Lincoln-Douglas Debater, who graduated rank by force (i.e. Time Limit) and notices that progressive/policy-like strategies are seemingly superior on the National Competition level, which is why he jumps on the bandwagon, trying to monkey-see-monkey-do his way into a progressive attitude and mindset, which is basically packed with arrogance no matter what kind of debater you are, thus the useage of multiple buzzwords and useless jargon that will not do him nor anyone else any good in the future, near or far.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
He's a policy kid, I would presume; it's kind of like the Light and Dark side of the Force, with LD = light, CX = dark, and PF = Gungans; CX kids have a lot of fancy terms, but when it comes down to it, they're more about technicalities and format than anything else.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Metz uses many terms that I don't understand ;______;
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
And in case you thought I have something against you Charlie, I do not. I disagree with your position on this issue and can get rather sarcastic. However I am now amused by your potential Fiat power in this debate... =)
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
I dont get the point to this debate. Will someone please explain what possible purpose two DDO account would serve? I mean besides vote bombing. But wait? if we allow counter-vote bombing then we get more counter vote-bombing to counter vote bombers. And then counter counter counter vote bombers... and so the only way to win a debate is to spend 20 minutes voting for yourself...

Reciprocal Burdens fail much? Probably half a dozen theory violations.... and just because I am feeling in a rather sarcastic mood, Would Kleptin have won with a PLTX disad? or do you also have Utopian Fiat power?
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Man, I really pissed you off, Cody.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Con - As soon as Pro tried to pull that "I only have to prove one instance to win" garbage, I was a little upset.
S/G: Tied
Arguments: Con - I agreed with Con that Pro's entire position was based on the fallacious assumption that two wrongs make a right; further, Pro's arguments about 'topicality' really turned me off to his position; I know that he's trying to bring a formal debate style to the site, but even as an LD debater myself, I sure don't use words like 'topicality'; furthermore, Charlie's example of "Sam the Debater" came off as extremely weak to me; also, while I'm one of the biggest "theory" debaters you'll find, I don't really think that you can exclude the real world under this resolution.
Sources: Con - The two sources provided weren't much, but I think that they helped Kleptin to explain the fallacies in Pro's arguments (though I didn't actually have to read the links to know what the fallacies were).
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Not doing a lot of good. A topic like this addresses an issue that I think is pretty important to DDO.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
You put this debate in your signature, Kleptin?

Cool.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Charlie_DangerKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Charlie_DangerKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Charlie_DangerKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
Charlie_DangerKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Charlie_DangerKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by radioactivepotatoman 7 years ago
radioactivepotatoman
Charlie_DangerKleptinTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Charlie_DangerKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Charlie_DangerKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Charlie_DangerKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Charlie_DangerKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05