There should be a minimum ELO ranking for DDO voting priviledges.

C1) Counting to potato and segregation " Currently, DDO requires that a person complete three debates before they can vote. Forum users can not vote until they complete three debates. "People who don't like to debate," can not vote until they complete three debates. Are these examples of the segregation my opponent so dislikes? Why not require that they show some level of competence in these debates? "This is a fallacy and my adversary is failing to draw the line between what is segregation of potato heads and segregation of inactivity. DDO currently restricts you from voting if you do not finish 3 debates. You do not have to win the debates, nor do you have to even try. You just have to show you are committed enough to the site to do 3 debates. This is quite different than telling people they cannot vote unless they are able to win a few in a row. Some people genuinely can count to potato, and are not capable enough to do 3 debates. Some people will do those 3 debates and then stick to the forums. Others just do those 3 debates and vote. No where in any of this are we segregation stupid people from voting. Under my adversaries plan, hes is requiring someone to be able to win debates, to vote. This undermines the ethics and principle of debate even if it is a desirable outcome. Sure people with higher elo generally cast better votes, but you cannot take away someones right to vote because you want people stupid people not to be able to vote. He sincerely hates potato heads. Literally this blasphemy he is preaching supports discrimination of retards all over the world. Retards of the world unite and stand in opposition of this tyranny my adversary is advocating for. Literally black people, remember this then remember when you fought back Don't let this guy do this and fight against oppression.C2) Correlation between elo and debate skillMy adversary says he draws no correlation between elo and intelligence but then requests that only competent people be able to vote on debates because of their elo*cough* *hypocrite* *cough*"I refer you back to his quote" Are these examples of the segregation my opponent so dislikes? Why not require that they show some level of competence in these debates? "He literally is correlating someones ability to vote (which is their thoughts) with their elo. This is directly assuming that intelligence or the ability to vote should be determined by elo. Then he states that elo and debate skill and a general correlation cannot be denied. This guy plays call of duty. He is that motherfuker that sites there and plays all day and prestige 89 times, then resets his stats to prestige 100 more times to claim he is the best. Just because you debate alot and pick up some wins in the process does not make you skilled. Get off that call of duty hype train. C3) Forcing people to debateHe then goes on to say envisage could easily raise his elo cap, so he should raise his elo cap in order to voteLike really man, you are dancing in circles saying the same illogical sht. Come at me in call of duty and ill show you a level 1 can smite your 99th level prestige C4) New voting systemThe change he is advocating for is already in place. In stead of generalizing this to all debates, why not just do the common sense thing, and set your criteria on the voting aspect of the debate to 2,500Hes advocating for a change that is already there Conclusionjust no