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

"My opponent claims that this system just doesn't do much … The new system at least limits people's ability to cheat." - First of all my opponent clearly misses the point of my first contention. I mean that although the solution does have a small effect, it is not worth the trouble. This is because it creates new problems such as the ones that I explained in the rest of my Round 1 contentions. Also, I would like to address the hypothetical discussion my opponent provides as a counter argument. We all know that it is not hard to persuade a family member to lend you their cell phone, if you find an excuse or even tell them the real reason that you need it for and my opponent knows this. So SOME people will still have multiple accounts and this is not fair. "It's not really discrimination, since everyone's expected to do the same thing. It makes all people -- black, white, American, Jamaican -- do the same thing: receive a text message on a US cell phone." - True, but this is irrelevant. It isn't discrimination against blacks or whites, its discrimination between people who have US cell phones and people who don't. I'm sure that plenty of people on this site don't. "More appropriately, we might say it is skewed to favour Americans." -I agree. "But then again, if we look at the people who use Debate.org, … Or you could put in some work to find someone in the states willing to do you a favour." It may not be fair, but life rarely is. This is the best system we have available." - There are many non Americans and American users don't have cell that use the site phones. These groups of people consist of a large percentage of the users of the site. It's not fair, I agree, but we can change it so it is. My opponent suggests that those who are foreign or those who don't have cell phones simply leave the site or be less privileged than the American users, my answer is that I'm sorry for disappointing you, but I like the site and intend to stay and I certainly don't agree to not being able to vote or use the other privileges of the site that my privileged opponent enjoys when the system may be changed to suit us all. Also as for what I should do I would prefer my opponent leaves out of his arguments them out of this because this debate is not about me personally. I neither appreciate his offer for me to leave the site, nor not vote or bother others so I can use their cell phone. Thanks. Yes, not all debaters think it is a good solution. For that very reason, I'm likely to lose this match of ours. - I directly disagree with this but then again, you were the one who accepted the challenge. If this observation of yours is made to make voters sympathise with you, you are sadly mistaken in doing so, if not I withdraw the comment. "However, it is true that we do not always know what is best for us … With the new system, things like that will not happen as often." - Again my opponent misses the point of my argument. I did not say that I object to solving the problem, I simply believe that the solution is not completely satisfactory and creates new problems (discrimination between users and objections of others) and that a new and better one is necessary. Also my opponent believes that people didn't have a problem with multiple accounts he is wrong. Also, these people (and believe me there are many of them), who object to the old system deserve a more effective and fairer solution. "Cheaters won't care how you view their dummy accounts. They'll still vote however they want, and simply fill the reason why with generic garbage supporting person X." - Oh yes they will, you can report them and they, along with all their dummy accounts will be BANNED and their bogus success in debates, which is the basic reason of cheating (:recognition) will be lost. So they will care. A fake account has certain characteristics: the user always votes for, or against the same person and they don't have any debating experience, just report such profiles and get the cheaters banned. "Let's say my good old pal Logical-Master has a debate with NoNameDebaterX …. I have to not only show everyone that I voted against Logical-Master, but I have to say why!" " Not to mention that anonymity while voting is very nice, because like I said, you're more able to vote based on what you actually think rather than on what you want people to see." - Not unless you care about people's opinion so much or lie about who you voted for, if your friends are really your friends and not people who use you to get votes, so they can win debates, they will understand that you believe that they lost. Don't be afraid to express your opinion! Even so, I will respect my opponent's fear of showing people what he believes and accept his challenge: I obviously can't give my opponent ALL the solutions one can think of, but I will give him 2 that popped out of my mind, I hope he's content: 1) Earned Right to Vote: A possible solution is that users will have to earn their right to vote. Just like children can't vote in real life until they reach the age of 18, because they supposedly lack fair judgement, in the same way 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) in order to be able to vote. That way, cheaters will have to go through a lot of trouble to be able to use their other accounts. It is better than the current system, because: a.) Debaters need to have fair judgement anyway and what better way to obtain it than debating? b.) It is harder and more time-consuming than just borrowing another person's cell phone so it will be more effective against cheaters. c.) It does not completely exclude certain users, because it's just a matter of time before even the new members can vote d.) The first thing a new user usually does, anyway, is start a new debate so this will bring his just extra debate away from voting. e.) You can always report cheaters (ex. People who make phony debates for their extra accounts to be able to vote), unlike the current system where you don't know who has more than 1 cell phone. 2.) Judges: Let's face it; the public voting system has many defects: >People can cheat easily with or without the mobile phone solution. >Users can use friends to vote for them, so whoever has more friends or has multiple accounts usually wins. >Many people vote for specific debaters, rather than the actual contents of the debate. >Many others vote for the opinion they support, rather than the actual contents of the debate. For example view this debate and its comments: http://www.debate.org... >Grudges and hatred, as my opponent accurately commented, may cause certain debaters to be targeted by a user (with or without multiple accounts) or a group of users. For example view this debate and its comments: http://www.debate.org... Taking all the above into consideration, and since real debates are not decided by popular opinion but with judges, I suggest that the site does the same. They can either hire or appoint people from their own staff to judge debates. This solution is better that the system current because: a.)Users can no longer cheat in any way! While with the current system they most certainly can. b.)The results will be fair, unlike the current system where the public doesn't chose the real winner very often, because of reasons that I mentioned above in bullets. c.)All users will be treated equally. While now, as my opponent pointed out "it [the system] is skewed to favor Americans" and users without cell phones are being being excluded in many ways d.)Certain users would no longer be targeted or favoured by the opinion of individual or groups. Thanks