The need for "Identity Confirmation" with a phone number is aburd.

Activating claim and response mode. Claim 1: Debate is meant to inform people so they can make a decision. Response 1: This is completely irrelevant, and also not always true. Sometimes debate is just a sport for some good fun. If my opponent wants this claim, I ask that he tell us why it has anything to do with the issue at hand. Claim 2: Identity confirmation is heavy handed. Response 2: A heavy hand is sometimes needed. For instance, in dealing with those who would set up multiple accounts to distort the voting outcome. Claim 3: Identity confirmation limits freedom of speech. Response 3: No, it doesn't. I'll ask my opponent to back this up. There is no loss in freeness of speech through identity confirmation. Claim 4: Identity confirmation is against the entire ethic of debate. Response 4: Once again, how? What ethic does it breach? Most debates are carried out in real life, and there most certainly is identity confirmation in real life [visual confirmation, aural confirmation]. If this is against "the entire ethic behind debate itself," then my opponent should inform the rest of the debating community, since he seems to be the only one who knows what this mysterious ethic is. Claim 5: Identity confirmation is disgustingly manipulative. Response: "Manipulative: tending to manipulate others cleverly or unscrupulously." - http://www.askoxford.com... Nothing is being manipulated here. You are simply being asked to confirm that you are a real person rather than a mule account before you are allowed to vote on debates. Claim 6: Anonymity is a serious personal right. Response: Really? In person it's not. Even so, how is this identity confirmation limiting anyone's anonymity? No one on this site has any idea who you are unless you make that information known yourself. That's anonymity, and it's intact. Claim 7: Stripping anonymity is limiting First Amendment rights. Response: First, you still have your anonymity. Second, the First Amendment says nothing about anonymity. Claim 8: All that remains here is what's safe and approved of. Response: Indeed. There are terms of service which we must all agree to before using this site. For instance, profanity is disallowed. This is because this site is intended for people of all ages and all walks of life. We are also not supposed to insult each other and such. This is because the creators of the site wanted a safe, friendly place for people to have a meaningful exchange of ideas, rather than a site filled with flaming and trolling. Even so, this point is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, since identity confirmation does not remove any content. Claim 9: No real discussion can happen under these conditions. Response: Then what is this? What is the comments area? No discussion is stopped or limited due to identity confirmation. Claim 10: This site has become a classic example of how intellectual property law destroys innovation. Response: Intellectual property laws have nothing to do with identity confirmation. Also, what innovation is being destroyed? Claim 11: This page does not deserve ownership of its domain. Response: They paid for it, and they put a lot of work into making a great site around it. My opponent gives no reason why they do not deserve their domain, and even if he did, that point would be completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand, like most of the claims my opponent has made. Now, I will tell you why the need for identity confirmation is not absurd. As a long-time member of this site, surely my opponent knows of the utter blight multiple accounts were on the voting outcomes of debates. As one of the older members of the site, let me assure you that it has been a major problem in the past. Luckily, the debate.org staff came up with a good way to limit the usage of multiple accounts without causing other big problems. Identity confirmation. It serves a very much needed purpose, so one could hardly call it absurd. I'll now let my opponent take the floor.