The Instigator
juantutri
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kinesis
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,391 times Debate No: 12814
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

juantutri

Pro

This site must not require users to first confirm their identity before they may vote because (1) that decreases the number of people who would vote for a debate and (2) it would make voting inaccessible to some countries and to those who do not have mobile phones (if people with computers but without a phone do exist).
Making users confirm identity will
1. be of disadvantage to people of certain countries and who has limited access to technology.
2. make the votes somewhat incomplete and thus somewhat unreliable.
Kinesis

Con

Instead of discontinuing the identity confirmation feature entirely, the moderators should simply fix the bug that prevents people from various countries confirming their identity. The correct course of action to fix a buggy but useful feature isn't to get rid of it, but to fix it.

Stopping users from having to confirm their identity would result in mass votebombing, which was a huge problem on this site in the past. With no means of control over multiple accounts, users could create debates, create large amount of accounts and vote up themselves such that legitimate vote would be all but pointless. Debate become nothing but votebombing wars, instead of intellectual exercises where the members of the site select the winner. Pro's suggestion, far from improving the site, would likely destroy it.
Debate Round No. 1
juantutri

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate.
Con said that "the correct course of action to fix a buggy but useful feature... is to fix it." I disagree on this because it is also possible to replace it with a more useful feature (like not allowing users of the same computers to vote twice for a period of time) if it will be easier or more advantageous to do so than fixing it.

Replacing it will be both easier and more advantageous.
(1)It might be hard for the administrators of this site to "fix the bug that prevents people from various countries [from] confirming their identity" since they must include, not only the major cellphone providers, but also the minor ones that might not even be known to the administrators.
(2)Some site members might not have access to mobile phones. All who are willing to debate must be given the chance to debate no matter what resources they have.
Kinesis

Con

Pro suggests we replace account verification with preventing the same computers voting twice for a period of time, however;

1. For such a feature to be effective, it would have to prevent people from voting for a very long time. If the person could simply come back and vote once per day it would still be ineffective. It would therefore have to prevent users from voting for about a week, which is ridiculous and still wouldn't be completely effective.

2. It could easily be worked around - for instance, school children could alternate between different school computers to vote, or if the household they lived in had multiple computers they could simply use all of them to vote.

Most cell providers are already implemented in the registration system. The only problem is with the amount of numbers you can type in the box, which seems like a simple feature to fix. Almost everyone who uses the internet has a mobile, and if not they are sure to have a friend who does.
Debate Round No. 2
juantutri

Pro

1.It will be effective if it prevents computer users from voting twice for just a certain topic. They then can vote again for another topic. Yes, two members might be using the same computer and both might want to vote for a certain topic but such case is less common than not having a provider listed and less disadvantageous.

>members using the same computer with an intent to vote on the same topic in the system I proposed
a. is rare
b. won't render the other users from voting for other topics
>members not having access to providers listed by the site in a system requiring verification
a. is very common especially outside the U.S.
b. will render them unable to vote for all topics

2. Having identity verification is easier to be worked around, so it must be replaced. Having different sim cards or friends to lend you a phone is easier, less costly than having different computers.

Providers from some countries aren't listed and might not agree to be included.
Kinesis

Con

1. This suggestion is more reasonable, but still suffers from impossible flaws:

a. Users can still use different computers - this is not expensive, since I outlined two common scenarios in which multiple computers already bought for other purposes could be co-opted.

b. Users can simply use dynamic IP addresses [1] which alters their IP address every time they log in, giving them unlimited votes.

2. There is an option for users without a listed carrier to contact customers support for the carrier to be added and them confirmed. [2] This is not an issue.

3. With account verification, users are unlikely to be able to create more than a few account even when borrowing mobiles (which are more personal items). These accounts can be identified quite easily from checking the vote tab and account. This is impossible with anonymous voting.

[1] http://en.wiktionary.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
@juantutri
it is not possible in php, there are many ways to make it seem impossible, like cookies, or preventing the same ip from voting, but cookies can be cleared and ips are dynamic.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Just email them, they'll add your provider.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
lovelife - Company matters cause you're asked to select a provider before you can continue, which I can't do because my provider is not listed.
Posted by juantutri 6 years ago
juantutri
I thought in php it is possible to prevent computer users from voting twice?
Posted by juantutri 6 years ago
juantutri
>Mac
I can't borrow a friend's phone. The major providers of our country are not listed.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
But I agree, its messed up. Why does the company matter anyway?
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Good luck getting sh*t to change on this site.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
Apparently most cell providers have been listed. That is only true for the USA. International visitors like me need to change providers to use this site, because only one provider from my country is listed (we have three, all with about equal market share). That's not fair, and needs to be changed too.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
an ip address is a set of numbers that the internet uses to distinguish different computer.
a dynamic ip address is an ip address that changes, so if i go to a site today, it will see one address, then when i visit it again tomorrow it may see another address, and have no way of knowing it was the same computer.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
What's a dynamic IP address?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GriffinGonzales 6 years ago
GriffinGonzales
juantutriKinesisTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Mac 6 years ago
Mac
juantutriKinesisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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