There is no way to make voting on this site fair.

So my opponent and I were talking about this 5 minutes ago and I decided to challenge her to a debate about it.

My argument is that voting on this site will never be fair and therefore there is a hardly a point to keep track of win ratios or number of votes or anything like that.

#1 People will too often vote based on the resolution alone and not read the actual debate

#2 People will down-vote other people that they don't like or don't agree with on the site

#3 People will make multiple accounts and vote for themselves

There is no way for my opponent to change or solve this so I'm pretty sure I will finally leave the 0.0% win ratio now :-P

James, you shouldn't say things like it "will 'never' be fair" while debating -- you cannot prove that it will NEVER be fair. Anyway I agree that all 3 of your points can and do occur; however, if I come up with a way to make voting on this site fair than you would have lost the debate.

Here's one idea: While registering for a Debate.com account, each individual should have to provide either a debit or credit card confirmation. This would eliminate the creation of multiple accounts by one person. If one chooses to use more than one card to sign up for 2-3 accounts (say one of their debit cards and one of their credit cards), not only would it be easier for the Webmaster to detect, but it might also be "fair" if each member has to pay $1 to join. If someone is willing to pay $1 for an extra vote, some may deem it okay because they're actually paying for something as frivolous as one lousy vote on Debate.com.

For those members under 18 or who do not have their own credit/debit card, obviously they can ask a parent or friend to borrow theirs for the one time usage/fee of $1. My younger brother and all of his friends aged 5 - 15 all use their parents' card to sign up for extra tools on the online game site Runescape, so obviously this is a practical idea that can and already is put into use on other sites. It's not an issue. Plus, that site charges $5 a month whereas this site can only have a tiny, one-time fee with the only purpose being making the voting more fair -- not making more money for the site.

However, assuming that there actually are 4,000+ members on this site, that would be $4,000+ more dollars that go towards the Debate.com team which may assist the owners in speeding up the new feature implementation. I s'pose that has nothing to do with the voting so I digress.

Now as far as my opponent's #1 and #2 problems, I have a few ideas. First, just as with the debate tournament on Facebook, perhaps people should have to provide at least a brief explanation explaining why they voted the way they did. There can be a necessary 25 character minimum while submitting a vote the same way there is a character minimum for debate rounds and comments. If people have shallow reasoning behind their vote, other members can either choose to ignore it, or do something more vindictive like shallowly vote against that particular individual. The choice is theirs and that makes it fair.

Second, if someone wants to vote solely based on the resolution, that's really di<k of them, however, that would be their choice... especially if they paid for it (with the $1 sign-up fee). That can and might be reflected in their vote reasoning as described above, or I simply argue that it's FAIR to let someone vote however they want with their 1 assigned vote per debate (via card registration).

I'll admit that these ideas aren't perfect, but they ARE fair. Even if it burdens a small minority, the fact that it might greatly benefit the majority of site participants AND the Debate.com team make it fair. Plus, I'm not arguing that people should vote Con based on my ideas themselves, but rather my perfomance in this debate coming up with ways to challenge Pro's reasoning.

#3

a. Not everybody has the $ to pay debate.com
b. If you had to pay there would be less members who sign up

#1&2

a. You didn't solve the problem of unfair voting

#3

"Not everybody has the $ to pay debate.com"

I find it highly unlikely that people don't have $1 to spare according to my solution/idea. Even if they don't (then what are they doing online?), they can borrow it from their parents or friend along with a debit/credit card.

"If you had to pay there would be less members who sign up"

Not less MEMBERS, less ACCOUNTS. And not because of the money, but because of the verification.

# 1&2

"You didn't solve the problem of unfair voting"

My point is that people can vote any way they want (especially if they're paying for it)... that's what is FAIR. Plus, part of my idea calls for a way for voters to have to at least somewhat explain the reasoning behind their vote. Not to mention, even if people vote at random, they would probably only have 1 vote to throw away -- not multiple to use against others.

Okay you conceded "in real life" but just to make it official, I will reiterate your main 3 points and the results of this debate:

#1 People will too often vote based on the resolution alone and not read the actual debate

-- I think that's kind of di<k but definitely the most fair thing. Kinda like how Americans will vote for a politician based on marketing or what political party they belong to rather than research each candidate and their policies. It's not exactly the best thing to do, but it happens and people deserve a vote... and to vote anyway they want... so I think this is more fair than any other solution. Plus, like I said, we can try to encourage people to explain their reasoning similar to how it's done in the Facebook online debate group for judges.

#2 People will down-vote other people that they don't like or don't agree with on the site

-- Again, I think that is one's right. It's di<k but most people on the internet are, so. Plus look at it this way: it could keep things interesting/competitive.

#3 People will make multiple accounts and vote for themselves

-- My solution "solved or changed" this as your Round 1 asked your opponent to do. There are also other possible solutions but for the sake of brevity I will include only one. Anyway, like I've said, with my solution there won't be less MEMBERS joining but less ACCOUNTS which will be more fair in terms of voting.