Instigator / Pro
6
1489
rating
19
debates
42.11%
won
Topic
#2108

Users on debateart.com should identify by their legal names

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument: Pro's argument centered on, and he admitted that DebatArt should be a social media site, and that social media sites often impose real identity.Con countered that DebateArt is not a social media site, but a forum. Con carries a better, demonstrable argument in this observation, and the argument then becomes on of what is vs what should be. since DA is currently a forum site, and there is nothing about the site that compels it to become a social media site, by Con's argument, and Pro did not ever present a defensible case for the conversion, Con wins the points.

Sourcing: One one single source reference, Pro lost source points due to one source offered in R3 that was clearly outside the boundary of a "reliable" source by offering a corruptible source, merely by an example of a corruptible source, even though Pro gave sufficient warning to avoid opening the source. The point is made without having to offer a corruptible source. The offer of it, alone, invalidated Pro winning source points. Points to Con.

S&G. tie, regardless of Con's admitted spelling errors in r1, which, none the less, did not deter understanding the text.

Conduct: Tie. Both participants conduct was acceptable.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I feel like Pro begins with reasonably sound arguments but does not go forth to prove them; that DebateArt has serious problems with cyber security and phishing. He does assert that requiring everyone's name will help against crimes, but has only listed the one example of Wylted, which I feel is not sufficient enough. Con's confusion is understandable as Pro seems to be mixing up ideas, because it's two things to show the admin your real name vs show everyone your real name. Pro definitely lost the second, as privacy matters a lot and Con established the website as a friendly casual match rather than more serious websites. I feel like Con could have bring up how IP ban could still successfully circumvent Wylted creating multiple accounts, that the one exception was truly just that. Con does however state even the Admin himself has chosen to remain anonymous, a clear show of what kind of site this was. Unless they wanted to show themselves as an example ("I am willing to say who I am, so that I will take credit for my actions") then users shouldn't do the same, that's what con is implying. I think Pro's case could work for more formal sites, but DebateArt is just not necessary.