Debate.org is too strict for new users.

First, some overview points. While it is excusable that the proponent has not been involved in a formal debate, there are a few things that are seriously lacking here, and these lead us to the the overall conclusion that we must oppose the resolution. I. The proponent gives us no case to stand on. It is his duty to affirm the resolution and it is his duty to prove it correct. If he is unable to do so, then you must vote to oppose the resolution. As my opponent has provided no case to prove that Debate. org is too strict in its rules for new users, you must vote for the con. II. It is important to note that because I am the only one who has presented a case, as my opponent has already been shown to lack one, it makes it appear to the voter that I am the one who has the burden of proof. I just want to further emphasize that the burden of proof lies on those affirming the resolution. As such, even if I lose all of the points on my side of the round, I still have a case to stand on, and he none. Therefore you must vote for the con. III. Now, let us get into the argumentation here. There are some overarching themes in the argumentation of my specific points, so I may address them as such in a cross-application of those arguments. I hope you will bide with me. A. Quality Over Quantity 1. The Counter Argument: More is Better a. In his attack on my first argument against the idea that Debate. org is too strict, my opponent argues that it is better to have a greater sampling in a poll. He provides Wikipedia sourcing in his claim that a poll with larger samples is more accurate. However, there are three problems with this argument: 1. Misstating the Purpose The first of the three reasons that you should disregard this argument is that the opponent is, once again, misunderstanding the reason that we have public votes on a debate. Debate. org is not a polling center. We are not Rasmussen Reports. The design here is not to come to a realization that the majority of people believe in stance x on issue y. I look forward to the opportunity to debate on the sides of issues that I would not normally agree on, and I will vote for the better debate in any circumstance. Debate. org is not a record keeper to see how many people on one side of an issue rally together to amass points for the side that argues for what they believe in. In all cases, the design is to vote for that person who did the better debating and who made the better arguments. There is a reason that the check-boxes for "Who did you agree with before the debate? " and "Who did you agree with after the debate? " [1] are worth no points in the scheme of things. Thus, when the opponent says that we want more people to register their opinions on issues by voting in the debates we have,he is damaging the entire purpose for Debate. org. There is reason that you are able to vote in polls as soon as you have completed the first two tasks in registering, but are not able to decide who won a debate. Because that is what a ballot says: who won the debate. A ballot does not register an opinion on an issue. 2. Statistics I am not trying to be nit picky, but I am a mathematics major, and the claim that in all cases, a larger poll provides more accurate results is completely false. If it were indeed the design of ballots for debates to accurately reflect the feelings of the populace on an issue, Debate. org would need to be far more strict in its access to voting to prevent people form registering an account just to rage on an issue like Abortion or Health Care Reform and then going along their merry way without any productive feedback, etc. The amount of bias in these polls would render the results unusable and unrepresentative. Response bias is particularly damning in this idiom. [2] 3. Does Not Increase Response For lack of a better way to phrase it, some issues just aren't as sexy as abortion. Increased user access to voting does not increase the number of people who are going to vote on an obscure topic. It just doesn't work that way--sadly. B. Value Thoughtful Ballots 1. The Counter-Argument: Everyone has an Opinion In the argumentation against my second point, we get an amalgamation of the misunderstanding of the purpose of Debate. org and a critique of the subjects debated and a clear misunderstanding of how to rate superheroes. a. Please cross reference my argumentation in sub-point 1 under Misstating the Purpose and the following argumentation in considering the second point of contention in this debate. 1. Subject Matter--Cross-Reference Regardless of subject matter, the idea of a ballot is to register a decision on who won a debate not on the opinion for an issue. Case closed. Whether or not n argument seems frivolous, it still deserves consideration other than a troll ballot that results in a perfectly eloquent debater losing because he was defending an unpopular viewpoint. 2. Superheroes Seriously? Marvel rules the comic universes and thus Superman is innately inferior. Case-in-point: X-Men. C. Mis-Stating the Purpose a. Again the argument about purpose is relevant. Further let us address some other issues. 1. Personal Experience I can appreciate the fact that you almost gave up on this site because you were not allowed to vote instantly. I get that. However, the process of going thorough this debate and learning the customs and the structures will, hopefully, make you realize exactly why we need the three introductory debates. It isn't enough to say that you agree with a position. You have to be able to speak to why you believe what you believe. And that is what Debate. org asks people to do. We bring together people of a like mind who recognize that debate is a beautiful thing, but that does not mean that we all agree on similar principles about life. We must be able to vote for those who advocate an opinion other than our own, and your advocating for an opinion other than that is frightening for the mission that Debate. org has. 2. It's Hard I agree. There is probably a disparity between the number of accounts registered and the number that are able to vote. But does that mean that we should give up the principles that lead us to debate? No. We have to recognize the fact that we are not here to register opinions. I cannot state enough this simple argument: We are not here to cast a vote in a poll. There is valuable experience gained in debating that informs the way that we look at debate and the way we see argumentation as a whole. We need to see that more often, and that is why we all must participate in three debates before we can cast a vote. 3. Less impact The impact of allowing fewer users full privileges is far less than the impact of denigrating the mission of Debate. org and the impact of getting ballots that read only "HULK SUX! !! !! " D. Cross apply relevant arguments about nature of voting. I feel that I have been rather long winded. I have not provided evidence for these arguments, because I don't feel that, in a conceptual debate like this, it is valuable other than the two sources I have provided. Please recognize that a lot of this debate came down to conceptualizing what it is we are here to do on Debate. org and consider that in casting a vote. [1] I urge you to look at the top of this debate where you have your ballot to fill in. [2] . http://goo.gl... Thanks to all!