Instigator / Pro
6
1489
rating
19
debates
42.11%
won
Topic

Users on debateart.com should identify by their legal names

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
2
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 8 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Con
14
1638
rating
304
debates
66.78%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
Thanks RationalMadman for accepting my debate,

For the befenit of the audience I would suggest we can  come to some agreement on the definitions,
DEFINITIONS: 
USER:a person who uses or operates something
DebateArt.com:Debating website 
SHOULD:used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions
IDENTIFY:establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is
LEGAL NAME: A name used by the person in official government ID. 

BURDEN OF PROOF: case can be built around various reasons, 

1.Phishing:
definition:
"Phishing is the fraudulent attempt to obtain sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by disguising oneself as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication.[1][2] Typically carried out by email spoofing[3] or instant messaging,[4] it often directs users to enter personal information at a fake website which matches the look and feel of the legitimate site."
The phenomenon is well documented I will attach some links for the benefit of the audience and CON.[1][2]
To elucidate, a user sends a link to another user,that feels legitimate but is not and is intended to install malware into your system. The case is specially relevant to website as a debate participant even now both PRO and CON would want to check each other's sources , the only way of doing so is by clicking on the links provided.PRO's case is not built on whether or not an existing member of this community wants to indulge in this practise, but what if a new user creates an account using a spam mail, instigates or accepts a debate and gives malicious links as a source leading to a number of users and the contender to fall prey to the practise. When the use of links is so high in the website, the need for cybersecurity is also utmost. Not every user sign up to have debates, some just want to disrupt it's functioning (case in point: EricT profile on debateart.com), some can be hackers. 

How will the proposition help?
We all can agree that hackers mostly look for easy prey on the WWW. Everyone on this website and even CON must have received spam mail with some links in the description. The phenomenon is pretty common. Having that extra layer of difficulty in being able to sign up and make an account should successfully deter most hackers. Verification would also be not that difficult, an OTP on a mobile number, like OTP sent on Debate.org for verification should be sufficient. 

2.It will give the website more social media feel, attracting new users. 

3.Increased accountability on user's end: It would make a user profile to more concretely establish my point :
The reason for ban of this user is disturbing, still the section of the ban I would like to highlight is "Portraying himself as a 13-year-old-girl towards a 14-year-old boy".
This action itself can be called upon by various cyber laws and child abuse laws, I think both PRO and CON can agree on that. Furthermore, if such an unfortunate incident has happened there is no guarantee that in the future any other child will be not be targeted by a user on the platform. What if the parent of the child in the future case want to take legal action not only against the user but also the other members for neglect. Social media websites are no stranger to such lawsuits. 

How will the proposition help?
Identification of individuals will help making them accountable if any such unforeseen incident happens again, it will help steer away more of such predatory persons away from the website, but most importantly the moderation team can then take added care of underage users. An underage user on WWW is no different then an underage unaccompanied child on a flight, just like flight attendants take added care for them,the proposition will help moderation team take added care of the underage users. People also tend to lose their jobs in lights of such unforeseen incidents, so It is common to see people indulge in racist comments and pejoratives, when there is no much accountability on the users end. PRO has in his own capacity experience such incidents, people on the gaming platform tend to start using racist comments like "curry-hole" towards Indians, a broad agreement can be come upon that such incidents will tend to happen less if they can be traced back to the user who caused it.

4.Implementation: Debateart.com does not have the same problems as that of social media giants , which is influx of new users in thousands on a daily basis. The total strength is 300 approx., it is more like a online debateclub , a cool one. PRO sees no difficulty in implementing the given proposition of users resorting to use their legal names on such a small number of people.It can be implemented in two ways: 
1.Direct verification: a photo of  a non-compromising government ID (like a driver's license) 
2.In-Direct verification: asking for details of a phone number, to obtain that one requires a government ID. 



SUMMARY: Definitions and BOP have been provided, PRO looks forwards to CON's reply. 


Con
Okay, so I have spent a long time thinking about this debate. It seems like a solid case from Pro. Damn. Pedophilia is disgusting and a sote that enaes one to hide behind anonymity is immoral and complicit. However, what was the victim protected by? What led the victim of it to report it to the mods? His/her anonymity. You see, I am willing to bet that it was when the sexual predator asked to meet up or something along those lines that it occured to the victim or his/her parents that they should report it to the mods.

We come here not to have absocial media experience, DART may as well shut down and admit defeat if it is intending to compete with sites loke Facebook and Twitter. There already exosts a website named Quora as well as Kialo, where debating and information is the focus of the forum-like interactions. What sets DART apart is that it's almost a gaming environment where debating is a 1v1 sport (or team if group debates become prominent). People in very oppressove regimes may wish to anonymously come here to evin begin to read and ask things that help them comprehend how dictatorships can be immoral and how+why to get out safely and legally.


We need to help spread good information, help people truly want to debate and love debating. Can you dare jold a controversial opinion on facebook? Yoy can get fired for even daring to question or think some things on your real identity's social media profile. Even if you're a manic person with deep and dosturbing delusions, this website doesn't simply ban you for it if you can express it in a civil manner, instead users challenge you on the views and try to prove you wrong with information and persuasion. 

That's beautiful and can't be achoeved by chaining all users to their careers and reputations IRL. On top of that, there's a very established norm among forums to let users pick their own anonymohs usernames, it's wrong of Pro to say the norm is social media. DART is a free-speech enabling platform for passionate thinkers and questioners of things. We should not ruin that and violate the privacy of all for the sake of one extremely disgusting case of someone impersonating a minor towards another.

Hackers would give fake information or attempt to hack the site anyway by hacking into other people's accounts. Hacking is not stopped by demanding IDs, it's stopped by coding well and attempted hacking into your own system to see if it has holes.


Round 2
Pro
Definitions have not been contested thus considered accepted by CON.

1.PRO previously  used Phishing as an example and stated that DebateArt is susceptible to this aspect of social engineering because of added usage of links by debate-participants. 
CON contests by stating: 
Hackers would give fake information or attempt to hack the site anyway by hacking into other people's accounts. Hacking is not stopped by demanding IDs, it's stopped by coding well and attempted hacking into your own system to see if it has holes.
PRO's counter: A major chunk of e-transactions from banks are done by banks using mobile authentication one of ways of indirectly asking for IDs, thus effectively outsourcing the Identification of individuals and verification of their IDs to Telecommunication companies and using their verification procedure as a reliable procedure. A combination of both demanding IDs and mobile authentication would be impossible to break into, if it were possible all banks might have resorted to some other safety procedure.  Hackers necessarily dont target secure websites, an analogy might help here, a bunch of hyenas are hunting in the forest which prey would they prefer a limping zebra or a healthy zebra? 

2.PRO previously used increased accountability on the user's end to further his case,and used a profile to make his case, specifically "Portraying himself as a 13-year-old-girl towards a 14-year-old boy", section of an ban, and further stated that this action can be called upon under various cyber laws and child sexual abuse laws whose severity differs from country to country and raised a concern: 
If such an unfortunate incident has happened there is no guarantee that in the future any other child will be not be targeted by a user on the platform. What if the parent of the child in the future case want to take legal action not only against the user but also the other members for neglect. Social media websites are no stranger to such lawsuits.

CON contests:
 However, what was the victim protected by? What led the victim of it to report it to the mods? His/her anonymity. You see, I am willing to bet that it was when the sexual predator asked to meet up or something along those lines that it occured to the victim or his/her parents that they should report it to the mods.
PRO's Counter: Anonymity never helps a child specifically talking about internet, even reputed website  YouTube was found guilty of targeting under-age users by showing them specific advertisements and collecting their user data without the consent of their parents. The above act was mostly achieved by recognizing browsing patterns mostly associated with children. It is common sense that children are more susceptible to persuation, child predators thrive on that. A child is most likely to be persuaded and made to do things he or she does not completely understand, that is whole premise of age of consent worldwide, as PRO is using the same premise that a child does not know whats best for him or her, that decision should be incumbent on parents. PRO further states that, since already an incident as such has happened, it is easily understandable that we are well beyond the domain of " what if ?" but rather treding in " what then?","what after?".To elucidate, a future case might happen where reporting it to the mods will just not be sufficient, law will be needed to called upon action, preventive action is better than reformative action, why wait for the incident to happen? , why not prevent it ?

PRO's reason in BOP in R1 sufficiently fits the criteria: 
Identification of individuals will help making them accountable if any such unforeseen incident happens again, it will help steer away more of such predatory persons away from the website, but most importantly the moderation team can then take added care of underage users. An underage user on WWW is no different then an underage unaccompanied child on a flight, just like flight attendants take added care for them,the proposition will help moderation team take added care of the underage users. People also tend to lose their jobs in lights of such unforeseen incidents, so It is common to see people indulge in racist comments and pejoratives, when there is no much accountability on the users end. PRO has in his own capacity experience such incidents, people on the gaming platform tend to start using racist comments like "curry-hole" towards Indians, a broad agreement can be come upon that such incidents will tend to happen less if they can be traced back to the user who caused it.


Counters to CON's arguments: 
People in very oppressove regimes may wish to anonymously come here to evin begin to read and ask things that help them comprehend how dictatorships can be immoral and how+why to get out safely and legally.

PRO can't help but notice CON is hinting towards North Korea, in  oppressive regimes in the lines of North Korea internet is banned so visiting any website is out of the question, let alone getting out safely. The arguments fails. 

We need to help spread good information, help people truly want to debate and love debating. Can you dare jold a controversial opinion on facebook? Yoy can get fired for even daring to question or think some things on your real identity's social media profile. Even if you're a manic person with deep and dosturbing delusions, this website doesn't simply ban you for it if you can express it in a civil manner, instead users challenge you on the views and try to prove you wrong with information and persuasion
PRO feels the answer to such question is commonsensical, there is a time and place for everything, you can have intimate relationship with your lover but you can't start getting intimate on the street or in a children's park. Social media is not the place for controversial opinions specially because words can be taken out of context. Debate societies, local forums and local municipal assemblies, if an individual feels the need to be heard he should resort to the mentioned means. Furthermore controversial is a very broad term, CON Is not helping his case by using the word, for instance a new educational bill introduced in the Parliament to a sex tape of a celebrity can be termed controversial. 
That's beautiful and can't be achoeved by chaining all users to their careers and reputations IRL. On top of that, there's a very established norm among forums to let users pick their own anonymohs usernames, it's wrong of Pro to say the norm is social media. DART is a free-speech enabling platform for passionate thinkers and questioners of things. We should not ruin that and violate the privacy of all for the sake of one extremely disgusting case of someone impersonating a minor towards another.
PRO is also in favour of free-speech .Free-speech and a difference in opinion is always needed for functioning of a healthy society, but PRO cannot make sense out of what need of privacy curtails individuals from openly forwarding things that they believe in. Nikunj Sanghai is the given name of PRO, although PRO's country is socialist, PRO has been vocal against socialism and I think same is the case for a citizen in a capitalist country like USA, a citizen living in a capitalist country can advocate for socialism provided he does not indulge in pejorative forms of speech. PRO has been asked "What caste are you from?" in a personal message on this website, it is same as asking an african- american man in USA ," which tribe did your ancestors belong to?", safe to say wildly racist. Hiding behind user names only encourages users to indulge in pejoratives and racism. Free speech of an individual is never curtailed by exposed if  his or her identity is revealed. A person feels the need to be heard, he can have it his way but only on the merit of arguments provided.


SUMMARY: PRO disproves CON's stance on user names enabling free speech by showing that user names only encourage usage of pejoratives and racism due to lack of accountability and reaffirms his case of legal names ratified by government IDs used on debateart will enable better protection for underage participants on the website and curtail pejorative forms of speech.

Con
Aapologies for the typos in Round 1, I'll clear them up in the final Round and keep this Round short and sweet.

Pro's arguments seem to be angled from the core perspective that the default is to demand every user to give their government-issued ID in order to use a website. This is not the norm at all, especially not for online forums. 

Even websites like Trip Advisor which relate to real identities having the power to influence the real reputation of real restaurants, hotels etc., has usernames that are completely up to the user to display as real or not: https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g297604-i6045-k1835871-Usernames_how_d_you_get_yours-Goa.html

I think more important than this discussion of why Pro has set the norm to be social media rather than online forums, is the issue of what 'identify by' means. Is Pro saying our display names and/or profiles need to display the real age, name and such? An easier case to make for Pro will be to twist this debate into being that you identify privately with the ID yet can use whatever username you want. The retort I give to that is that even the owner of this website is anonymous (this website has a Russian proxy as its hosting address, I won't link to proof of this as it may come under the 'doxxing' part of the Code of Conduct, just search it yourself).

Since the owner and the mods are themselves anonymous or in the case of Virtuoso, selectively not anonymous, the problem of 'why should I trust this website with my government ID details' comes in. This is the entire reason why it's important to see this website as an online forum and not as a social media platform. This is not some place to come and show off your video-making or music-making skills to garner profit and large-scale popularity. This is a shrine on a tiny place in the World-Wide Web where people wanting to debate things come to.

Pro can keep bringing up ridiculously extreme examples of hackers or predators but that is frankly besides the point. Predators are even on social media, hackers are everywhere.


They will use fake IDs if you push them to (yes, seriously, a dedicated piece of dirt criminal looking to exploit a website or human being on a website will go to the lengths of literally faking an ID if need be). Is it worth making it simply take more effort for them to fake things in order to dissuade the vast majority of the userbase away? How do I know the vast majority will move away from the website if they require IDs?

If you would care at any time to look at any sample-size of profile above 4, I guarantee that maximum 2 have any deeply identifiable real-life details of the person (excluding gender). I don't have a source that aggregates all the data and if I did the research 1 by 1 myself it still wouldn't be worth it as you'd not even trust me to give unbiased evidence supporting a side within a rated debate in which I'm participating.

The fact is that in order to 'stop the hackers' (what hackers? There have been 0 hack attempts to DART to my knowledge) and the single case of a piece of dirt predator that clearly was caught very efficiently by the mods before any harm or whatever could take place (I don't know), we are going to need to apparently alienate 95+% of the userbase of this website who wish to hide details about themselves in order to debate freely and uninhibited. I find it fascinating that Pro's only evidence against this is that he himself doesn't fear the Indian government (which is the country his profile currently claims he's from and which he's free to change at any time). The fact that he thinks India was the country I was referring to when I said 'corrupt regime that oppresses its people' is a bit peculiar. I'm talking about Russia, China, Saudi, Iran... That type of nation.

Not everyone can afford to have a controversial opinion or have a healthy outlet for their argumentative nature. A debate-website is very unique in what it offers and that's only possible thanks to the fact it lets you avoid social peer pressure and other such factors via the privacy it grants users. Free of real-life identity, 95+% users just come here to express weird opinions and have a good time (or they get bored and leave, no harm done). Stop looking for this tiny minority and make the entire system need to change just to make them have to fake their identity in order to use and abuse the service.

Actually, I don't even understand this 'hacking' point. What kind of 'hacking' requires you to yourself sign up to the website? I don't know exactly what he's talking about and I don't want to, I'm not a criminal and I'm also not the cybersecurity expert of DART's workforce. I am just a user here and proud to be one, yes 'proud'. I am not 'ashamed' but would I feel 'embarassment' if certain people IRL knew what I say and could they reject me, tease me etc. for it? Yeah, I'd rather not have to worry about being bullied or rejected. 

Hate speech and such are limited on this website but it does allow you to push out some very outlandish views that border the edge of such categories. It's not about allowing abuse or inciting violence or bullying a certain gender or race at all. It is about letting the person with a very bigoted view express their reasoning and perhaps finally come across a place on the Internet that doesn't either agree with them or tell them to 'fuck off'. They may finally get reasoned with and talked out of their ignorant ways. That's not going to frequently happen if both them and those debating against them are forced to identify as their real life identity, it completely removes the freedom and culture of 'say what you really believe' that we have here. I don't want that and it's just not worth it in any shape or form for these imaginary 'hackers' who will somehow not game/abuse the system and fake their ID anyway.
Round 3
Pro
thanks, lets jump straight into arguments 

ARGUMENTS: 
1.PRO previously  used Phishing as an example and stated that DebateArt is susceptible to this aspect of social engineering because of added usage of links by debate-participants
CON contests by stating: 
Hackers would give fake information or attempt to hack the site anyway by hacking into other people's accounts. Hacking is not stopped by demanding IDs, it's stopped by coding well and attempted hacking into your own system to see if it has holes.
PRO's counter: A major chunk of e-transactions from banks are done by banks using mobile authentication one of ways of indirectly asking for IDs, thus effectively outsourcing the Identification of individuals and verification of their IDs to Telecommunication companies and using their verification procedure as a reliable procedure. A combination of both demanding IDs and mobile authentication would be impossible to break into, if it were possible all banks might have resorted to some other safety procedure.  Hackers necessarily dont target secure websites, an analogy might help here, a bunch of hyenas are hunting in the forest which prey would they prefer a limping zebra or a healthy zebra? 

CON contests: Actually, I don't even understand this 'hacking' point. What kind of 'hacking' requires you to yourself sign up to the website? I don't know exactly what he's talking about and I don't want to, I'm not a criminal and I'm also not the cybersecurity expert of DART's workforce. I am just a user here and proud to be one, yes 'proud'. I am not 'ashamed' but would I feel 'embarassment' if certain people IRL knew what I say and could they reject me, tease me etc. for it? Yeah, I'd rather not have to worry about being bullied or rejected
PRO counters: The term is called phishing and PRO already attached sources for CON to read, still PRO will explain again on conditions of Goodwill. 
1. This is link number one (youtube link of a song) 
2. This is link number two ( Please don't click this link: malicious website) 
Link 2 is dangerous and is hidden in plain sight, Link 1 is a youtube link of a song PRO likes, there is no limitation or sorting done when I inserted link 2 on the website. Clearly breach is easier to hide because of the attach link feature, 
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g297604-i6045-k1835871-Usernames_how_d_you_get_yours-Goa.html this was a link used by CON, PRO and other users can see the web address and judge for themselves, here but in the above two examples web address is hidden. Should anyone clicks on Link 2 his data and web security can be comprised. After previous points PRO has explained his side with clarity.

PRO furthers his proposition by reiterating R1 response and the analogy:Having that extra layer of difficulty in being able to sign up and make an account should successfully deter most hackers. Verification would also be not that difficult, an OTP on a mobile number, like OTP sent on Debate.org for verification should be sufficient. A bunch of hyenas are hunting in the forest which prey would they prefer a limping zebra or a healthy zebra? 

2. PRO had previously pointed out how identification will result in increased accountability on the user's end. 

CON contests: However, what was the victim protected by? What led the victim of it to report it to the mods? His/her anonymity. You see, I am willing to bet that it was when the sexual predator asked to meet up or something along those lines that it occurred to the victim or his/her parents that they should report it to the mods.

PRO counters: Anonymity never helps a child specifically talking about internet, even reputed website  YouTube was found guilty of targeting under-age users by showing them specific advertisements and collecting their user data without the consent of their parents. The above act was mostly achieved by recognizing browsing patterns mostly associated with children. It is common sense that children are more susceptible to persuation, child predators thrive on that. A child is most likely to be persuaded and made to do things he or she does not completely understand, that is whole premise of age of consent worldwide, as PRO is using the same premise that a child does not know whats best for him or her, that decision should be incumbent on parents. PRO further states that, since already an incident as such has happened, it is easily understandable that we are well beyond the domain of " what if ?" but rather treding in " what then?","what after?".To elucidate, a future case might happen where reporting it to the mods will just not be sufficient, law will be needed to called upon action, preventive action is better than reformative action, why wait for the incident to happen? , why not prevent it ?

CON contests:the single case of a piece of dirt predator that clearly was caught very efficiently by the mods before any harm or whatever could take place (I don't know), we are going to need to apparently alienate 95+% of the userbase of this website who wish to hide details about themselves in order to debate freely and uninhibited. 

PRO counters: CON is assuming it, there has been no refusal or outright rebuff on this debate or on PRO's points in the debate section too by other users. Assumptions cannot be held as arguments. While the PRO is making no assumption did happen :https://www.debateart.com/participants/Singularity
PRO is only advocating for preventive action rather than reformative action. Youtube also has taken reformative action according to CON's own sources 
Youtube has disabled comment sections for children videos or content for children and also advised to make profiles of children private, etc. When CON's own source  backs PRO's stance, CON's stance only withers. 

3.CON states:  
People in very oppressove regimes may wish to anonymously come here to evin begin to read and ask things that help them comprehend how dictatorships can be immoral and how+why to get out safely and legally.
PRO contests:
PRO can't help but notice CON is hinting towards North Korea, in  oppressive regimes in the lines of North Korea internet is banned so visiting any website is out of the question, let alone getting out safely. The arguments fails.
CON counters:
 we are going to need to apparently alienate 95+% of the userbase of this website who wish to hide details about themselves in order to debate freely and uninhibited. I find it fascinating that Pro's only evidence against this is that he himself doesn't fear the Indian government (which is the country his profile currently claims he's from and which he's free to change at any time). The fact that he thinks India was the country I was referring to when I said 'corrupt regime that oppresses its people' is a bit peculiar. I'm talking about Russia, China, Saudi, Iran... That type of nation.
PRO contests: Why will CON think PRO is scared of his own government? it exists to protect the interests of the citizen, its a democracy. Had PRO been from China situation become very different , people disappear in China for criticizing the government. PRO would like to state that hiding details does not help the users one bit, governments track IPs and other signatures of digital footprint. How does CON thinks agencies locate terror cells, and catch them? The only difference in countries like India( PRO's country) and UK(CON's country) I am assuming the fact since tripadvisor showed a .UK signature on CON's link, only terrorists are tracked, in countries CON is mentioning everyone is tracked and what they think and post is actively monitored. He would known it had he been a citizen of such a country. 

4. CON states: 
Pro's arguments seem to be angled from the core perspective that the default is to demand every user to give their government-issued ID in order to use a website. This is not the norm at all, especially not for online forums. 

Even websites like Trip Advisor which relate to real identities having the power to influence the real reputation of real restaurants, hotels etc., has usernames that are completely up to the user to display as real or not: https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTopic-g297604-i6045-k1835871-Usernames_how_d_you_get_yours-Goa.html
PRO counters: SELF CONTRADICTION BY CON 
One hand CON's own profile picture is "Black lives matter" challenging the prevalent norm in USA of killing of African-American citizens by Police, but is trying to assert correctness of hidden identities based on it being " the norm ". Point PRO is making is simple and CON is too agreeing unknowingly with PRO, just because it is a norm does not mean it is correct. We can agree that Police killing Black people in USA is not correct but it is the current norm isn't it? Thus assertion of correction of hidden identities based on it being the norm is wrong. 

5.CON states in R1: 
Even if you're a manic person with deep and dosturbing delusions, this website doesn't simply ban you for it if you can express it in a civil manner, instead users challenge you on the views and try to prove you wrong with information and persuasion.
CON further states:
Hate speech and such are limited on this website but it does allow you to push out some very outlandish views that border the edge of such categories. It's not about allowing abuse or inciting violence or bullying a certain gender or race at all. It is about letting the person with a very bigoted view express their reasoning and perhaps finally come across a place on the Internet that doesn't either agree with them or tell them to 'fuck off'. They may finally get reasoned with and talked out of their ignorant ways. That's not going to frequently happen if both them and those debating against them are forced to identify as their real life identity, it completely removes the freedom and culture of 'say what you really believe' that we have here
PRO counters:PRO is also in favour of free-speech .Free-speech and a difference in opinion is always needed for functioning of a healthy society, but PRO cannot make sense out of what need of privacy curtails individuals from openly forwarding things that they believe in. Nikunj Sanghai is the given name of PRO, although PRO's country is socialist, PRO has been vocal against socialism and I think same is the case for a citizen in a capitalist country like USA, a citizen living in a capitalist country can advocate for socialism provided he does not indulge in pejorative forms of speech. PRO has been asked "What caste are you from?" in a personal message on this website, it is same as asking an african- american man in USA ," which tribe did your ancestors belong to?", safe to say wildly racist. Hiding behind user names only encourages users to indulge in pejoratives and racism. Free speech of an individual is never curtailed by exposed if  his or her identity is revealed. A person feels the need to be heard, he can have it his way but only on the merit of arguments provided.

PRO further counters: CON again indulged in Self Contradiction
On one hand CON states if a person is manic the website wont ban you but his own words described the paedophilia case as:
Okay, so I have spent a long time thinking about this debate. It seems like a solid case from Pro. Damn. Pedophilia is disgusting and a sote that enaes one to hide behind anonymity is immoral and complicit.
The ban by moderators and CON's opinion proves a point that yes infact there is a code of morality on this website and it is not much different from the real world.Free speech is never blocked by identity revelation, but crimes and hate speech is surely curtailed. Lets take CON and PRO as examples, 

1.Both PRO and CON have been addressing each other peacefully trying to counter each other(Free speech) 
2.Both PRO and CON cannot be allowed to make lewd comments against a women on the platform.(Crime) 
3.Both PRO and CON cannot be allowed to allowed to say to a muslim member of the website" you are a terrorist" (Hate speech) 

PRO is only advocating for transparency which encourages situation 1 and discourages situation 2 and 3

6.CON states:
We need to help spread good information, help people truly want to debate and love debating. Can you dare jold a controversial opinion on facebook? Yoy can get fired for even daring to question or think some things on your real identity's social media profile. Even if you're a manic person with deep and dosturbing delusions, this website doesn't simply ban you for it if you can express it in a civil manner, instead users challenge you on the views and try to prove you wrong with information and persuasion
PRO counters:PRO feels the answer to such question is commonsensical, there is a time and place for everything, you can have intimate relationship with your lover but you can't start getting intimate on the street or in a children's park. Social media is not the place for controversial opinions specially because words can be taken out of context. Debate societies, local forums and local municipal assemblies, if an individual feels the need to be heard he should resort to the mentioned means. Furthermore controversial is a very broad term, CON Is not helping his case by using the word, for instance a new educational bill introduced in the Parliament to a sex tape of a celebrity can be termed controversial. 

CON contests:Not everyone can afford to have a controversial opinion or have a healthy outlet for their argumentative nature. A debate-website is very unique in what it offers and that's only possible thanks to the fact it lets you avoid social peer pressure and other such factors via the privacy it grants users. Free of real-life identity, 95+% users just come here to express weird opinions and have a good time (or they get bored and leave, no harm done). Stop looking for this tiny minority and make the entire system need to change just to make them have to fake their identity in order to use and abuse the service.
PRO counters: That is exactly the problem that needs to be addressed isn't it, why do individuals need to keep their identities when the they believe the words they speak. What message does it send  as a person even in a free- country, an individual is afraid to what he or she feels deeply about? Even CON uses the username,"RationalMadman". He states he feels deeply about "Black lives matter" , hypothetically had the murder of George Floyd taken place in front of him and there was a lot of pressure from the civil administration and politicians to give a false testimony, would CON budge to the demands of the administration or see justice done? If yes, how can he presume he can show such courage if he cant even use his real name on a forum. Highly doubtful. Sometimes in speaking their minds individuals feel backlash, does not mean they are wrong. Haven't we all see countless examples as such: 
1. Nicolaus Copernicus advocated for Sun being centre of Solar system. 
2.Gandhi advocated for rights of the down-trodden castes in India.
3.Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for rights of African-American people. 
PRO is only advocating for courage had no intention to curtail free speech. 
an extract from A poem by Nobel Laurate Rabindranath Tagore may help convey PRO point: 

If there is no-one responding to your call - then go on all alone
If no-one speaks (to you), don't think you are unfortunate, if no-one speaks (to you),
If everyone turns away, if everyone fears (to speak), then with an open heart without hesitation speak your mind alone
CONCLUSION: PRO has made his case clear , PRO actively encourages free-speech and expression of thought, he uses two pillars to make his point : courage and transparency. But with active encouragement of free-speech the need for increased accountability of actions on hands of individuals and discouragement of unacceptable behaviour needs to be done. PRO 's proposed resolution in only made with that intent. 
Con
My opponent is committing a series of logical fallacies but more important than that is the fact that he's committing core debate fallacies.

Let me explain what's happening here so that you, as reader and audience, do not get confused by what Pro is trying to do to you and this debate.

For starters, Pro is suggesting that the 'free speech' I am advocating for would include chat about illegal things in an illicit way. This is absurd and completely strawmanning my case.

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.

I am not at all contradicting my case when I completely agree with Pro that the mods need a moral code that is enforced at the sake of users engaging in illicit content and context of communications on this website. In such cases, I made it clear that I support Pro in that the law enforcement should investigate fully and indeed uncover the identity of the owner of the account. This does not contradict my case because it is extremely important for us to comprehend the scope of this debate and what Con is debating against and Pro is debating for.

This is where it becomes Pro who is vague, self-contradictory and even absurd.

What is Pro actually arguing for? Something that has remained a mystery, despite me repeatedly asking for clarification on it from Pro, is whether or not Pro is advocating for all users to publicly display their real names, ages etc. on their profiles or to privately send the photo ID to the site's admins and moderation's high ranks, while remaining 'anonymous' to the website by their username and profile if they so choose. It is actually solely due to me having to debate both angles and scenarios at once that my case even appears to contradict itself. I believe that I have successfully covered my bases on both scenarios, highlighting that the very admin himself remains anonymous (meaning you shouldn't trust him with your photo ID) and that Pro is both unrealistic and self-defeating in that if he wants this website to try and become the next Facebook, what he's actually advocating for is this website to drive itself into bankruptcy and to drive almost all of its userbase away. This website competes with niche forums, not massively successful social media platforms, Pro has yet to comment on this or explain how I am incorrect for assessing the 'line of competition' to be on an Internet forum/message-board level as opposed to a social media public profile level.

Another thing that's extremely peculiar about Pro's attacks on me, are what exactly Pro is trying to suggest instead. For example, Pro says this:

There is a time and place for everything, you can have intimate relationship with your lover but you can't start getting intimate on the street or in a children's park. Social media is not the place for controversial opinions specially because words can be taken out of context. 
- Pro, Round 3

I already explained, this is not a social media platform. People do not come here to socialise with their real-life friends, in fact if you come with people who are on the same Internet connection as you, you can be accused of multi-accounting and unless you explain it to the mods, it can lead to confusion and hassle. This is an internet forum (or in the Formal Debating arena is more comparable to a gaming environment than a message board, where the game played is 'debating'). I keep reiterating this time and time again, Pro keeps saying that Social Media is not the place for controversial discussions and I agree with him because what I say is that this website very specifically is an Internet Forum message-board environment where people debate strong views at times and shouldn't be enslaved to the conformity and fear of persecution that a 'social media' vibe and environment provide. This is not a contradiction of any kind on my part, this is me separating what this website is and the level on which it competes from a massive Social Media platform like Facebook or Twitter. This is neither of those two things, they are for-profit organisations designed to help people 'show off' and stay connected with people they know in real life, except doing so online and in a public manner. Some people like to do that, they engage in it and would not consider that platform suitable for controversial discussions (which will probably get you banned or even fired if your corporation happens to disagree with your views). What you say here should be 100% legal to say, that's without question. If it isn't, the IP address you use and other factors should of course be used in an investigation into you. To go to the extreme anomaly scenarios where that is required to suggest that all Internet forums should stop letting users remain private and not have to use a government-issued ID is absurd. What exactly is in it for DART to invest in this process? They may as well shut their website down, they are not trying to compete with social media they are only a niche forum and that's all they are trying to be.

At this point, I feel like Pro and Con are not actually battling, it is almost as if we are in two different rings, boxing shadows. The ring that Con is in, is battling against the debate's Resolution/Topic that Users on debateart.com should identify by their legal names, while the ring that Pro is boxing in is one in which we are debating how good of a social media platform DART is and whether or not forcing people to identify by their government-issued ID names is better for that purpose. 


This is not a social media platform, it's a niche-interest forum message-board. This isn't run for profit all that much at all, to my knowledge the owner runs it at a consistent loss out of a passion for debating. This is there for people to debate without the restriction of worrying about taunting from colleagues, rejection from family and other such things. 
Round 4
Pro
CON accuses me of being vague, self-contradictory and even absurd. I will try to address the accusations to the best of my abilities. 




This is where it becomes Pro who is vague, self-contradictory and even absurd.

What is Pro actually arguing for? Something that has remained a mystery, despite me repeatedly asking for clarification on it from Pro, is whether or not Pro is advocating for all users to publicly display their real names, ages etc. on their profiles or to privately send the photo ID to the site's admins and moderation's high ranks, while remaining 'anonymous' to the website by their username and profile if they so choose. It is actually solely due to me having to debate both angles and scenarios at once that my case even appears to contradict itself.

Reply: I believe my stand has been clear and is known from the statements like ,"why do individuals need to keep their identities when the they believe the words they speak." Still If CON feels he cannot interpret the stand PRO is taking PRO is solely talking about users using their real names instead of user names. PRO has not spoken about any other information in the debate(eg- age, location), but the information should be verified by 2 processes already mentioned.Reasons were mentioned in previous responses but I will strengthen my position further. 

1.Direct verification: a photo of  a non-compromising government ID (like a driver's license) 
2.In-Direct verification: asking for verification of a phone number, to obtain that one requires a government ID. 

Debate topic: The topic specifically says Users should instead of Users must so there is an element of choice. PRO is only debating that should the userbase become transparent and trackable the possibility of a number of scenarios will be successfully mitigated. That rule does not need to be enforced, should that happen what will be the advantages of the the proposition have been highlighted by PRO, CON must refute those advantages and make cases of this own stating should that happen User base might come to harm. Till now, CON has only resorted to refuting my claim not provided any affirmative cases or arguments of his own.




1. CONTRADICTIONS: 
First Contradiction: PRO can only be accused of connecting the dots 

Statement 1 in R1:
Okay, so I have spent a long time thinking about this debate. It seems like a solid case from Pro. Damn. Pedophilia is disgusting and a sote that enaes one to hide behind anonymity is immoral and complicit.
Statement 2:
Even if you're a manic person with deep and dosturbing delusions, this website doesn't simply ban you for it if you can express it in a civil manner, instead users challenge you on the views and try to prove you wrong with information and persuasion.
PRO will simply demonstrate his point that neither is PRO vague nor is he contradicting himself: 
I dont think anyone will have a problem of describing paedophilia as a deep and disturbing delusion, if not all encompassing atleast one of them. 
If paedophilia is one of the deep and disturbing delusions and CON has not specifically said which delusions is he talking about than PRO cannot be accused of being vague. In a point CON is trying to make it is his responsibility to be crystal clear not PRO's. Contradiction stands.

I am not at all contradicting my case when I completely agree with Pro that the mods need a moral code that is enforced at the sake of users engaging in illicit content and context of communications on this website. In such cases, I made it clear that I support Pro in that the law enforcement should investigate fully and indeed uncover the identity of the owner of the account. This does not contradict my case because it is extremely important for us to comprehend the scope of this debate and what Con is debating against and Pro is debating for.
Further contention: Okay since we are talking about Laws , the action is punishable in my country as well as in US(since most user base is US based) 
Act:Portraying himself as a 13-year-old-girl towards a 14-year-old boy".
1.My country: BREACH
Section 11 of Prevention Of Children from Sexual Offences act,2012. 
"repeatedly or constantly follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means"
2.US: BREACH
Unlawful communication to a child using Technology, PRO does not have an exact section of the law but here is man getting arrested for a similar offence. 

2.
Since the owner and the mods are themselves anonymous or in the case of Virtuoso, selectively not anonymous, the problem of 'why should I trust this website with my government ID details' comes in. 
CON's case is easily refutable, to trust someone normally associates with there is an element of harm coming the user or anyone's way. To demonstrate such harm must be incumbent on CON, and to do so CON must successfully demonstrate either the owner or moderators are associated or taking part in an  illegal activity or any other means they might harm the user base , PRO claims CON must prove it since CON is alleging anonymity of the owner and law works in the way of " innocent until found guilty" ,instigator not the defendent must prove guilt. Until so ,they will be held as law abiding citizens of their respective countries , a law abiding citizen can be trusted with a ID. 

3. 
 I believe that I have successfully covered my bases on both scenarios, highlighting that the very admin himself remains anonymous (meaning you shouldn't trust him with your photo ID) and that Pro is both unrealistic and self-defeating in that if he wants this website to try and become the next Facebook, what he's actually advocating for is this website to drive itself into bankruptcy and to drive almost all of its userbase away. This website competes with niche forums, not massively successful social media platforms, Pro has yet to comment on this or explain how I am incorrect for assessing the 'line of competition' to be on an Internet forum/message-board level as opposed to a social media public profile level.
CON has shifted goalposts , PRO has never said even uttered any such words , PRO made himself clear in R1: (Implementation) 
Debateart.com does not have the same problems as that of social media giants , which is influx of new users in thousands on a daily basis. The total strength is 300 approx., it is more like a online debateclub , a cool one. PRO sees no difficulty in implementing the given proposition of users resorting to use their legal names on such a small number of people.
PRO has and always maintained this  is forum, what did PRO hint at :
It will give the website more social media feel, attracting new users. 
Amusement parks have pools that imitate ocean like waves, gives the visitors a beach side feel does not mean they need to compete or even try to become a beach resort. PRO feels the analogy makes his point clear. A social media feel does mean PRO is implying DebateArt should become a social media website. 

4.
I already explained, this is not a social media platform. People do not come here to socialise with their real-life friends, in fact if you come with people who are on the same Internet connection as you, you can be accused of multi-accounting and unless you explain it to the mods, it can lead to confusion and hassle. This is an internet forum (or in the Formal Debating arena is more comparable to a gaming environment than a message board, where the game played is 'debating'). I keep reiterating this time and time again, Pro keeps saying that Social Media is not the place for controversial discussions and I agree with him because what I say is that this website very specifically is an Internet Forum message-board environment where people debate strong views at times and shouldn't be enslaved to the conformity and fear of persecution that a 'social media' vibe and environment provide.
A lot of this has been quoted out of context to confuse everyone I believe, 
here is what CON said:
We need to help spread good information, help people truly want to debate and love debating. Can you dare jold a controversial opinion on facebook? Yoy can get fired for even daring to question or think some things on your real identity's social media profile. 
here is what PRO said in reply :PRO feels the answer to such question is commonsensical, there is a time and place for everything, you can have intimate relationship with your lover but you can't start getting intimate on the street or in a children's park. Social media is not the place for controversial opinions specially because words can be taken out of context. Debate societies, local forums and local municipal assemblies, if an individual feels the need to be heard he should resort to the mentioned means.

This is a forum, PRO has never challenged it, CON is only falsifying my stance. 

At this point, I feel like Pro and Con are not actually battling, it is almost as if we are in two different rings, boxing shadows. The ring that Con is in, is battling against the debate's Resolution/Topic that Users on debateart.com should identify by their legal names, while the ring that Pro is boxing in is one in which we are debating how good of a social media platform DART is and whether or not forcing people to identify by their government-issued ID names is better for that purpose. 
Redundent answer: The topic specifically says Users should instead of Users must so there is an element of choice. PRO is only debating that should the userbase become transparent and trackable the possibility of a number of scenarios will be successfully mitigated.


PRO's main argument: CON has been mute about the main debate argument about what CON's stance represents on principle, that even in a free country individuals feel a need of hidden identity is needed to protect them to be able to speak their mind freely. A need for anonymity, A need for secrecy only suggest fear and oppression has encouraged the individuals from free-speech and they cannot even account for the words they mean and challenge the socio-political context in real life, how can they be expected to do so when they cannot even own the words they speak on a forum. On principle PRO challenged CON himself, on "Black lives matter" in R3. On principle PRO's stance states that an individual can say whatever he wants and he has got the right to dissent. 

PRO already stated in R3:Why do individuals need to keep their identities when  they believe the words they speak. What message does it send  as a person even in a free- country, an individual is afraid to what he or she feels deeply about? Even CON uses the username,"RationalMadman". He states he feels deeply about "Black lives matter" , hypothetically had the murder of George Floyd taken place in front of him and there was a lot of pressure from the civil administration and politicians to give a false testimony, would CON budge to the demands of the administration or see justice done? If yes, how can he presume he can show such courage if he cant even use his real name on a forum. Highly doubtful. Sometimes in speaking their minds individuals feel backlash, does not mean they are wrong. Haven't we all see countless examples as such: 
1. Nicolaus Copernicus advocated for Sun being centre of Solar system. 
2.Gandhi advocated for rights of the down-trodden castes in India.
3.Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for rights of African-American people. 


“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”― Benjamin Franklin
“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.”― William Faulkner. 

CONCLUSION: 
  • CON drops assertion of correction of username based on norms, after self-contradiction was highlighted. 
  • CON drops the cybersecurity points raised specifically phishing phenomenon. 
  • CON drops the citizens from oppressive regimes accessing the website after PRO sources mass tracking of citizens of such regimes. 
  • CON fails to address his stance being challenged on principle. 
  • PRO highlights breach of laws by action of particular member on the forum. 
  • PRO highlights CON's own source suggesting reformative action, supporting PRO's stance. 
  • PRO is in favour of free speech but accountability of words should be called for to prevent hate speech and crime. 
  • PRO's poposition is based on "users should" rather than "users must", thus PRO only needs to highlight the benifits of such a proposition "should" it comes to action. 





Con
Pro's case makes no sense. They're even lying about me. Pro wants to force every single user to put on display their ID details and have shown the admin and mods the ID to confirm it's them. This is absurd and will drive DART into completely losing 95+% of its userbase. What will they gain? Nothing. Not one single user who would use DART with their real name and age now would suddenly join and do that then.


I don't have a clue what Pro's case is. Literally just go to next Round and close this debate, that's all I suggest.

Round 5
Pro
CON has not made any strong affirmative action suggesting harm coming to the userbase. From the very beginning CON has insisted on :
Pro's case makes no sense. They're even lying about me. Pro wants to force every single user to put on display their ID details and have shown the admin and mods the ID to confirm it's them. This is absurd and will drive DART into completely losing 95+% of its userbase. What will they gain? Nothing. Not one single user who would use DART with their real name and age now would suddenly join and do that then.
There is no definitive way of proving it, CON's argument is a supposition, a theory, with no backing of any sort. Maybe 10% leave maybe no one leaves. How can anyone specially the VOTERS side with CON based on a supposition. 


PRO has repeatedly said and will reaffirm to the voters that the argument was and always has been should the proposition come into action what will be the possible turn of events and scenarios, how will it migitate certain well documented phenomenons, CON must refute those and make cases of his own. Since CON has failed to do so. PRO claims victory . Please vote PRO. 

PRO's arguments are backed by sources: 

CONCLUSION: 
  • CON drops assertion of correction of username based on norms, after self-contradiction was highlighted. 
  • CON drops the cybersecurity points raised specifically phishing phenomenon, already well documented. 
  • CON drops the citizens from oppressive regimes accessing the website after PRO sources mass tracking of citizens of such regimes. 
  • CON fails to address his stance being challenged on principle. 
  • CON's main idea is a supposition with no backing of any sort. 
  • PRO highlights breach of laws by action of particular member on the forum. 
  • PRO highlights CON's own source suggesting reformative action, supporting PRO's stance. 
  • PRO is in favour of free speech but accountability of words should be called for to prevent hate speech and crime. 
  • PRO's poposition is based on "users should" rather than "users must", thus PRO only needs to highlight the benifits of such a proposition "should" it comes to action. 
VOTE FOR PRO , thank you for reading. 

Con
Many sources can be twisted to support Pro or Con's stance. Just because my source said hackers are an issue doesn't mean they supports my stance in this debate.

Apology for wrong sourcing of my first definition it was Cambridge, not M-W.

As for this debate itself and the conclusion, I find it difficult to conclude Pro's side as I genuinely don't understand the case he is making. Pro is suggesting that either you support cybercriminals or you support Pro's agenda. This is extremely ridiculous and Pro has yet to prove that it's a black and white situation. If a user becomes a criminal, you then report them to the authorities, hand over the information and let them take it from there.

There is no reason to blackmail every single user of every online forum to give you their government ID. That is both unviable economically as they will run away to your competition and furthermore is just a flat out unnecessary invasion of privacy. This ignores that Pro's idea isn't just that you apply to the mods with it, he later reveals he intends to force you to publicly display that ID (I know I can't use the comments section but he discusses the idea saying your profile picture would distinguish you from other people of the same name, he also implies this is his aim several times in the debate).

Pro decided to prove to you that you can spoof URLs by having a different URL to the one displayed. I assure you if someone did that on this site and the URL was harmful, they'd get banned and reported to authorities if it was very severe. The issue is that Pro says that's not good enough, we should have known their identity to begin with but I am telling you that all that will happen is people move to more privacy-allowing forums (yes, even the 97+% of completely innocent non-wrongdoers will move there as they don't want to make everything about them known on a forum designed to allow them to speak freely).

I believe I've made my case already in this debate. Thanks for reading.