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

1A. Pro says creating a second account and trying to validate it with a different cell number would prove problematic. Almost every single person I know over age 12 has a cell phone. Again, my argument here is that it really wouldn't be that difficult to use someone else's number to create another account. Furthermore, being able to vote because you've confirmed your account has nothing to do with the nomination process, so this is a moot point. Nonetheless, my main contribution here is that I don't think this stipulation will significantly deter the creation of dummy accounts in any way - ESPECIALLY if endorsement by two people is a requirement (as that is more incentive to create a dummy account). 1B. Extend my point that it'd be hard to tell whether or not n00bs would endorse random people, because n00bs don't know anything about DDO and may endorse anyone for any reason. Pro dropped this argument. 1C. I pointed out that n00b sniping in this regard is not necessary, because we have other ways to determine whether or not dummy accounts are fakes. Pro simply says suspicion would be raised if dummy accounts endorsed someone new, but this doesn't address my point that the suspicion raised could be tested and validated by mods who have access to IP checks. 2A, 2B, 2C. = Conceded to the Con. These are some of my strongest and most important points, so please extend them.2D. Pro again misses the point. He writes, "This resolution is not meant to channel more votes towards front runners I am showing how in a close election these one vote candidates could hold the power to sway an election for a legit candidate..." Maybe, maybe not. All the resolution does is POTENTIALLY limit the number of candidates (which I've already argued is very likely to not happen anyway, AND could be a bad thing). If Pro hasn't proven that there would be less people running, then this whole point is moot anyway.Pro continues, "...which was contrary to what you said before about how the voting impact these independent candidates would have would have no impact." Keep in mind that Pro previously said that swaying an election was NOT the purpose of this rule, so this is contradictory. I also specified that in THIS election the voting patterns would not change, considering innomen won by a landslide. I pointed out that even in close elections, people shouldn't be forced to vote for front-runners and should be able to vote for whomever they want (even if that person only receives 1 vote and will very likely not win anyway). That is essentially what Pro is arguing against - the opportunity to vote for someone who will very likely lose as opposed to more "legitimate" candidates. Remember, he is complaining that people who had no chance are allowed to run...3A, 3B. = Conceded to the Con. == CONCLUSION == Pro's concession of point 3A basically solidified the win for me. I will repeat the points I argued in the last round's point 3A -- Pro (a) offers no proof whatsoever that the number of candidates would be reduced; (b) that the number reduction in candidates would be a good thing outside of POSSIBLY creating less campaign threads [which is speculative and not necessarily beneficial]; (c) that 2 endorsements somehow produces better quality or more "legitimate" candidates - especially because n00bs and/or friends can endorse people; (d) there might still be a lot of presidential-related threads, except about nominations instead of campaigns. Pro also completely ignored every point of my re-cap -- 1. Most nominations only require 1 endorsement; that is sufficient. Expanding requirements hinders the democratic process. 2. This wouldn't eliminate bad candidates, and could stifle potential good candidates. We have no reason to believe the community would elect an overwhemingly "bad" president. 3. The site could benefit by exposure to the platforms and ideas of as many people as possible, so more campaign threads can prove to be beneficial to the entire community at large. It also hasn't been proven this would lead to less threads. Finally, Pro dropped and ignored my potential proposition (which is a better alternative than his suggestion). We can only conclude that he agrees my proposition is better than his, so even he would not support the resolution.Pro concludes that his main point still remains -- that the two endorsement deal would be difficult for noob candidates to overcome, because in addition to their account, they would need to create a second and third account for their dummy votes. This is nowhere near enough to affirm the resolution let alone negate all of my points. Pro has pretty much ignored all of my points, choosing this as his last leg to stand on. However, I've already argued against this sufficiently. It would be easy to create fake accounts, even if you require additional cell phone numbers. Creating an acount takes literally less than two minutes. We have access to plenty of people with cell phones to borrow. One only needs to ask for the stats regarding how many fake double accounts there still are to see that people who really want to will not be deterred. More importantly, cell phone numbers validate voting on DEBATES, not in the presidential election. Plus, Pro never said that just because you endorsed someone for nomination means you necessarily have to vote for them, so these accounts need not the ability to vote to begin with, eliminating the cell phone problem. Moreover, I've repeated that we can use IP verification and other checks to spot obvious dummy accounts. Pro ignored this. Overall, this point is incredibly weak when you consider all of the other points in my favor anyway. For aforementioned reasons, this isn't even a strong point for the Pro. As a final contention, I'd argue that the resolution is useless because the election allows you to vote for write-in candidates, who need not campaign or run at all therefore require zero endorsements yet can still win.