DDO Presidential candidates should be openly endorsed by two people before being able to run

.. 1A. Pro repeats the same argument that it would be hard to create dummy accounts if you needed 2 people to sponsor you in order to run for President. I've negated this contention many times over. - Almost everyone has a cell phone; it wouldn't be hard to borrow one or two to create a dummy account. - Pro hasn't explained why this is necessary since cell phones are only required so you can VOTE ON DEBATES - not nominate someone for President. Pro dropped this argument of Con's. - Since it only takes 2 minutes to create a new account, this would not be a strong deterrent. - You wouldn't necessarily need a dummy account(s) as n00bs might agree to nominate you anyway. - We can check for dummy accounts by having the mod(s) do IP scans. At this point I think it's obvious that Point 1A has been negated many times over. Pro conceded points 1B and 1C, as well as 2A, 2B and 2C. 2D. I explained in the last round that Pro hasn't proven that his proposal would mean there are less people running. Furthermore, I explained that less people running may even be a negative thing. Pro did not respond to any of these points. Instead, he repeated the same argument that having two people sponsor you would lead to less people running. I've already explained that this is not guaranteed or even likely in any way whatsoever. Since Pro did not prove otherwise, then you must extend my arguments detailing fully why this would likely not happen (many of the points can be found in my response to 1A). I shouldn't have to repeat or copy and paste my arguments for a third and fourth time. The gist of it is that it would not be difficult to get two sponsors. Nevertheless, Pro never argues against the idea that less people running might be a bad thing, so extend that point as well. Pro also concedes to the second part of 2D. In other words, he acknowledges that people should be able to vote for whomever they want - even if they are the only person doing so. This means that if someone wants to vote for themselves despite not having a legitimate chance at winning, that's their prerogative. If Pro can't argue against that (and he hasn't), then we have no reason to extend the criteria for eligible candidates as Pro suggests. Pro also conceded points 3A and 3B. In conclusion, Pro says his proposition is based on a cost/benefit analysis. Ironically, Pro argues against himself while detailing the costs. First he brings up that this process isn't necessary as it likely would not have an impact. Thus this hinders the democratic process unnecessarily, as it creates more bureaucracy. Pro says it shouldn't be hard getting 2 people to sponsor you out of 30,000 members on this site. I think it should be noted that there are nowhere near 30K active members on this site. I believe about 30 people voted in the Presidential election. Nonetheless, here we can see Pro arguing in favor of Con. If it would not be hard at all to get 2 people to sponsor you, then Pro has wiped out every contention he's made regarding this helping to deter people from running. If it's so easy to get nominated, then Pro agrees that this is a useless cost that would very likely be ineffective. Finally, Pro concedes that platforms that could benefit the site may not be brought to light. Now we must look to the benefits. The only benefit Pro repeated was "eliminating some of the fraud candidates. " Pro has already eradicated this benefit considering he admitted that it would not be hard to get two sponsors. Furthermore, he never responded to my points that (a) there are no such thing as 'fraud' candidates; (b) People including the "frauds" themselves should be allowed to vote for so-called fraud candidates; (c) none of this matters considering we allow write-in candidates, which require NO sponsors and NO campaign at all whatsoever. Basically, I'm not really sure how you could vote anything but Con in this debate. All of Pro's points have been negated whereas all of mine have either been ignored or conceded in my favor. Thanks again to imabench for this discussion, and good luck :)