Should I have to complete three debates in order to start voting?
Debate Rounds (2)
Voting should be allowed, with a simple verification of your mobile phone (even though I believe this is also a bit extreme.. I can see a concern for multiple votes from a single individual.)
Yes you have to.
"In order to vote, we currently require two steps. These steps, although annoying, are in place to protect the integrity of the debates by ensuring that only confirmed, unique accounts have voting privileges. "
Basically, debate.org is doing this just to make unique Accounts to vote, and ones so that debate.org members who have t be experienced so that they can actually know a debate and vote on it.
Some people are poor at debating, and never had a debate in their life. That does not mean they cannot have an opinion or would have a false opinion. The act of voting on a debate is essentially a subjective decision based on the available presented by either side. And each individual should be entitled to their own opinions, and allow them to reflect them as such, without being placed through the scrutiny and gauntlet of going through 3 debates of their own.
And if it is to get each user to better understand how to use the site, again, forcing someone to become acquainted with your site, prior to use, when there are plenty of methods of teaching people to use your site (Like hint tabs), it seems a little self-righteous to demand that only people who know how to use the site correctly, are allowed to have valid opinions reflected on the debate side on this site.
1. Bad at debating
My opponent says that they might be bad on debating but good on voting. Why are you in this site, to improve and learn new skills! So this means that if you debate 3 debates, and improve, knowing how hard a debate actually is, you might know to have a good vote. Because the debaters are trying hard, and if you experience that, you will know you have to give a good vote because if you don't, you don't know how hard a debate actually will be.
My opponent says that if they need to know better, forcing them will be a good idea. This is just harder for the moderators. The moderators are doing this for free, what makes it almost the easiest for them, they will do it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 11 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Argument: In argument 1, Con made a proposal for a rules modification. Pro responded by citing a policy on integrity. Both sides went back and forth on the ability of voters to make decisions with or without debate experience. It was basically two unsupported opinions. I cannot really give the edge to either. However at the end, Pro mentioned the advantage for moderators. In a 2-round debate, it's unfortunate there wasn't an opportunity for rebuttal. As it stands, that rationale gives an edge to Pro. B&A: For con, I was irritated at first, too. Then I saw the sheer number of fly-by accounts that were created making random nonsense debates. It's a pain, but the mods are saved a thousand headaches because they don't have to deal with them. Do the time, then appreciate later that they don't get to vote.
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.