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

Should I have to complete three debates in order to start voting?

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: 2/28/2016 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 559 times Debate No: 87355
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




It does not make sense to require someone to debate themselves just to vote. IF the debate is like an arena or deul between two opponents, why is it necessary for the audience to also have joined in the sport?

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. [1]"

Basically, is doing this just to make unique Accounts to vote, and ones so that members who have t be experienced so that they can actually know a debate and vote on it.

Vote for Pro

Debate Round No. 1


Admittedly, this debating Site is a bit more complicated than you average news magazine website, with more options. And I can the concern with individuals not completely understanding how to use the site. However, if you contention is that people must learn what a debate looks like, or should be like, prior to voting, I believe that is false.

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.

2. Forcing

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.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by guyawesome1 2 years ago
the thing about complete 3 debates is so someone like me cant make a bunch of accounts and gurantee myself victories on debates so i can become the top debater on the website
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 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:03 
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.