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. NOTE TO THE READERS: The actual debate.org system does not require a _US_ cell phone specifically - but I will continue arguing in favor of this system. If your cell phone carrier is not listed on the identity confirmation page, you can contact support and they will add it. With that cleared up, back to the debate: 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. 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. The obvious response from the family member or friend in most cases will be "Why don't you use your phone?", and they will have to explain that they already made an account, and then they will have to explain why they want a second account. People do not want to tell others that they are cheaters. Also, "Let me borrow your cell phone to register for a site" is alrready something many people would not allow - fearing extra charges and such. However, my opponent is correct in saying that even under the cell phone confirmation system, SOME people will have multiple accounts. 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. This is just so far-fetched under the new system. Indeed, the very 'trouble' that my opponent says makes it 'not worth it' is the 'trouble' that stops people from making multiple voting accounts. My opponent is holding on to the notion that it is discrimination against people who do not have US cell phones. Under this logic, all web sites are 'discriminating' against all people who don't have computers. TV shows 'discriminate' against people who don't have a TV or don't have access to that channel. Radio stations 'discriminate' against people who are not in the local area, and those who do not have radios. Wo while under some definition it could be called 'discrimination' to require US cell phones for voting priveledges, do not let the negative buzword 'discrimination' mislead you. In the same sense that this is discrimination, all media is discrimination. Telling a joke is discrimination against anyone who isn't in earshot. Having a party on saturday night is discrimination against people who are busy that night. There is nothing wrong with being discriminatory in this sense. My opponent continues to claim that the system can be changed to suit us all, but this is not the case, and I will shatter his new alternative case later this round. This is the best system that has been advocated in this debate. We must accept the fact that it is not perfect. Yes, you have to go through a little bit of trouble to gain voting priveledges. Yes, you have to have a US cell phone. But there is no other way that will accomplish the same goals that need to be met. And when I said "You are always free to not use the site. Just as I probably wouldn't use a site skewed towards people living in Europe. You can also continue using the site, and just not vote. Or you could put in some work to find someone in the states willing to do you a favor," I was not referring to my opponent specifically. You will note that every time I address my opponent, it is in the third person. I use the second person solely to talk to my audience, and sometimes to speak about an unknown person. Therefore, his objections to me focusing on is specific case are unfounded, since I never did such a thing. I focused on the general case of people living in other countries, unable to access US cell phones. And he fails to refute my advice: 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 radia station - living in North Carolina would limit my ability to receive their transmissions. This is "discrimination" according to my opponent. 2> Continue to use this site, but not vote. In fact, it is what I have done so far. Just as an open source project will generally only accept contributions to the source code from people they know they can trust, but allows everyone to download it, Debate.org allows everyone to use the debating features, but not everyone can contribute to the judging of the debates - only people debate.org feels it can trust. 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. My opponent claims that "real friends" wouldn't care if you vote against them, so no one should mind if voting was made public. However, this evades the plain fact that people want to avoid a conflict, and will vote for their friend to avoid any possible trouble. This is simple psychology. The negative consequence of bickering/flaming will make a person stop voting against their friend, or whoever is bickering with them upon being voted against. Thus, public voting is bad. And like I said last round, that went un-challenged, public voting DOESN'T address the problem AT ALL. People can easily make multiple accounts and vote publicly against the person they want to vote against. The problem is just as present with public voting as it was under the old system. Now, to the new alternatives: 1. Earning the right to vote "debaters will have to have participated in at least 2, or more, full debates of their own not phony and without forfeiting more than 1 Round in total" The problem here is constant maintenance. Especially with so many new members expected in the near future, it would be way too much work for people to verify that a member has two debates that are not spammy. Even if we could have this done at an acceptable rate, and even if it wouldn't be a huge waste of human resources, it would not stop people from making as many fake accounts as they want. It is very simple to fake a debate between two fake accounts. In fact, it might even be fun for most of the people on this website, since we almost all love to debate - debating ourselves would be a nice change of pace. So as was the case with public voting, this new 'alternative' doesn't even address the problem. 2. Judges My opponent suggests that the staff of this website either judge debates themselves or hire professional judges. The obvious problem here is time and money. It is a massive waste of human resources. Even with the somewhat slow schedule debates fnish currently, it would take a lot of man hours to vote for every debate on this site - when you combine that with the fact that the site plans on growing massively in the near future, it becomes so absurd to suggest that the staff hire judges or judge the debates themselves. Also, one of the main reasons people read other people's debates is eliminated - most people read other debates so they can give their input - usually by vote. That means people view less pages on here, which usually means even LESS money for the site. It is completely impractical from an economic standpoint. And it removes one of the things that makes people like this site - being able to have an affect on the voting outcome of debates. I have shown that my opponent's alternatives either do not address the issue [publically displayed voting, 'earned' voting] or are completely impractical and absurd [judges]