Users on debateart.com should identify by their legal names
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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'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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
If there is no-one responding to your call - then go on all aloneIf 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It will give the website more social media feel, attracting new users.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
thanks.
vote>?
bump
vote please!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
I got a sense multiple core arguments from the vote along with their impacts. I am really unsure why it would be reported.
Oh this is not the dbeate wher eI had a merriam webster source, nvm.
Misindentification in this age is practically impossible, from drivers license to digital signature and digital footprints, data has become pretty easy to track. If you are just talking about this website, A different profile picture is sufficient to avoid misindentification.
Suppose there are two people called Adam Smith(just a common name), then will their names collide and result in a misidentification? Creative names exist for this.
just debating for sport, was bored of all the topics proposed here, I use my full legal name as I believe individuals should account for words spoken by them. This debate is just for sporting purposes, I have already caught CON self contradicting himself twice and used one of his sources against him, lets see If he can come back from this.
First of all, I'm saying this as someone who used half of their legal name as my username. I can't think of any social media sites that require identification for your name like you are proposing. Facebook is the only one I'm familiar with that makes you fill in a first and last name, rather than just a username.
You say "It will give the website more social media feel, attracting new users." But it is more the exception than the norm for a social media site to require a first and last name.
This verification process would not be free, and DArt would not be able to afford it as a matter of fact (at this point in time).