Debaters have to have a US cell phone in order to be able vote.

"Recognize that my opponent has abandoned his old alternative system, clearly accepting that it was successfully shown inferior to my own position." - This is false, because I did counter his attack on my proposed solution. "NOTE TO THE READERS: …" - This can not be considered as an argument because this information was provided to my opponent through the comment box, from another person. He only provides this "note", so users won't be misinformed. So this should not be taken into consideration when voting. "My opponent corrects his first contention, which was originally meant to show that the cell phone identity confirmation method was "ineffective". HE now insists that it is effective, just not effective ENOUGH to justify the trouble of having to confirm your identity via text message." -this argument is completely false. The title of my first contention is: "It is a FAIRLY ineffective solution", meaning that it is effective just not effective enough!!! So I do not change my argument. "I would go as far as to say that most people would not feel comfortable asking their family or friends to borrow a cell phone to make an account on a website. … Also, "Let me borrow your cell phone to register for a site" is already something many people would not allow - fearing extra charges and such." - a.) Most people DO feel comfortable asking their family to use their cell phone. b.)Most logical people would explain that it would not charge them extra, because it is just one message. c.) My opponent continues this hypothetical dialogue while trying to prove that it is hard to cheat, because persuading a family member to give you their cell phone, without charging them much which we all know is not that difficult. "However, my opponent is correct in saying that even under the cell phone confirmation system "How likely is it that someone will have a second account? Not very, I think I showed that in the last paragraph. What about three accounts? Very, very unlikely. Four? It gets increasingly hard to find people to scam into letting you use their phones, and most people just don't have it in them to do this anyway. In the old system, I can say that there were people who almost certainly had five or six accounts." - My opponent chooses to play a game of hypothetical discussions: I'll play along: 2nd account: Dialogue: -Hey sis, can I use your cell phone? -Why -I need to send a message. -Can't you use your own phone? -No, because I need to sign up for a sight and it says that my number doesn't exist, I need yours in order to use the sight -Am I going to get charged a lot or will they send me other messages other the first one? -No, I promise it is just one message and it is charged normally -Ok. Take it, but if I notice any problems you'll be in real trouble! 3rd, 4th, 5th accounts can be obtained in a similar way from borrowing siblings', parents' and friends' cell phones and CHEAT. Even if is not done in the same way as the example above it is very easy. So even if your family members are really suspicious, there is usually a way out of it. With the current system, people still cheat while in my 2nd alternative [judges] they can't cheat at all! My opponent goes on saying that his suggestions were not addressed to me personally but to all users who don't have a US cell phone. I thank him for leaving me out of the debating and I am happy that he had no intention of doing so. "A person who is not in the US can do one of the following things under the US cell phone confirmation system: 1> Not use the site. Just as I would not tune to a California radi[o] station - living in North Carolina would limit my ability to receive their transmissions. This is "discrimination" according to my opponent." - Yes, but a European can enter the site but not vote, while my opponent wouldn't even know about the California radio station. As for the specific example of Radio stations, it is a thing that probably can't change while in the case of the site it can! "2> Continue to use this site, but not vote. … but not everyone can contribute to the judging of the debates - only people debate.org feels it can trust." - Sure we and can't be trusted by the site to vote or access certain features, just because we don't have a US cell phone, while my opponent can. This is specifically the point [discrimination] I made in Round 1 and my opponent now adds to it. "3> Find someone in the states and get them to let you use their US cell phone for confirmation. It's what I have to do, since I have no cell phone." - This is easy for my opponent to do because he lives in the US. Also, my opponent here, offers this advise as if it were easy to do , but if it so easy to obtain your first account by borrowing another person's cell phone, using logic, it would be just as easy to obtain a second or third one in the same way. I guess I should thank my opponent for saving me the trouble of refuting his points myself." My alternatives 1: Transparency while voting: My Opponent claims that it does not address the problem, but logic tells us that it does. If users notice (as it very possible), a user without debating experience voting for or against the same person (that are likely to be fake accounts), they can report them and get cheaters BANNED. So my opponent's claim lacks logic, because it does address the problem. 2: Earning the right to vote: "The problem here is constant maintenance…Even if we could have this done at an acceptable rate, and even if it wouldn't be a huge waste of human resources…" - Debates will stay up long enough for people to read them in any case so spamy debates will most likely be traced on time. Also, when someone has earned the right to vote, it will be written on his account and his right to do so will exist no matter if his debates are still up there or not. My opponent says that this solution does not address the problem, because people can still cheat by creating phony debates. This is false, because it takes a lot of time to create such debates and for maybe the 2 first false accounts, the cheater won't mind but after that it becomes tiring and usually they would prefer to use their time for real debating or other activities, than wasting it on 1 or 2 extra accounts. So it does address the problem because it limits cheaters, it may not be perfect, but it defiantly addresses the problem more effectively than the current system, because it is easier to borrow your mom's cell phone than to make two entire 3 Round fake debates. Also, it is better because it doesn't cause the same amount of problems to users as the current system. 3: Judges My opponent says that it would be a huge waste of human resources and man hours to judge all future debates. This is false, because only 10 debates max are completed each and to judge these it would take about an hour or two a day. So his claims of HUGE waste are completely false. Also I would like to remind my opponent that most people who view debates are users who are checking up on their friends, second accounts who are there to cheat and the debaters themselves, but (most of the time) users and non-users who are preparing for similar debates of their own. So to see who real judges chose as the winner would attract even more people. So the site is most likely to not lose at all. Therefore my alternative is neither absurd nor impractical. Finally my opponent my opponent failed to refute the reasons I consider my alternatives better and why I consider the public voting system to have many defects. Therefore extend my argument. Above, I have proven that the current system is not the best one advocated. Also I proved that there are better alternatives to suit us all and NO you don't HAVE to have a US cell phone, while the problem of cheating will be dealt with more effectively if the current system is replaced. Thank you very much.