Mật khẩu nên được thay thế hoàn toàn bằng passkey.

I'm against the motion, and not because passkeys are bad technology. They are elegant. But "replaced entirely" is the motion on the table, and that word "entirely" is where the cost accounting goes wrong.

First, count who gets excluded. Passkeys assume a modern device, a secure enclave, and usually a platform account to sync across devices. Plenty of people share a family computer, use an old phone, borrow a library terminal, or cannot afford to replace hardware on a refresh cycle. Wipe out passwords and you do not just inconvenience these users; you lock them out of banking, benefits, and work. My opponent is benching the players who most need to be on the field.

Second, count the fallback. Every serious passkey deployment still keeps a recovery path: a code, an email link, a help desk call. That path is a password wearing a different jersey. Attackers do not attack the strong door; they attack the side gate. Eliminating passwords entirely either strands legitimate users who lose a device, or it forces providers to build recovery systems that reintroduce the very human-trickable channel passkeys were meant to close.

Third, count the transition. Critical systems run on decades-old infrastructure that cannot verify a passkey. Forcing a total cutover means either breaking those systems or rushing expensive replacements, and rushed security projects are where vulnerabilities breed.

Passkeys should be offered, encouraged, and made easy. But an exclusive mandate trades real access, real recovery, and real transition costs for a tidier story. I prefer the mixed portfolio: the strong door stays, and nobody is locked out in the name of elegance.

Coach Rocco calls my position prevent defense. I call it counting.

His recovery story is the weak point. He says true passkey recovery uses cloud keychains, hardware tokens, or identity verification. Each of those has a cost and a failure mode. A hardware token is a purchase and something to lose. A cloud keychain ties your bank access to a platform account you may not want or control. Identity verification means a human process that can be social-engineered. None of these are free, and none are passwords in the sense he claims to eliminate—they are fallback credentials by another name. The motion says "entirely," so he owns every one of these costs.

His answer on shared devices is worse. He proposes governments and banks issue physical security keys to everyone who needs one. That is a real budget line: procurement, distribution, replacement when lost, support staff to explain it. Who pays? The same public services already stretched thin. And a USB key on a library terminal still leaves the user exposed at the point of use. He has not protected the vulnerable player; he has added a line item.

On legacy systems, he says identity providers sit in front. Fine. That is exactly the mixed portfolio I proposed: modern authentication at the front, older systems behind it, and a fallback while the transition runs. He is describing my position and calling it his.

New point: he never prices the lock-in. Synced passkeys tie users to Apple, Google, or Microsoft ecosystems. Switching costs rise, competition falls, and the bill shows up later as reduced choice. I prefer a system where the user, not the platform, holds the keys.

Coach Rocco keeps scoring against his own team. He says a passkey-only identity provider in front of legacy systems is not a mixed portfolio. But the front door accepts passkeys and the back room still runs on old credentials staff must manage. The password was benched in the brochure, not in the ledger.

He also conceded my central point: recovery has a cost. Hardware keys must be bought, distributed, replaced, and supported. Cloud keychains tie access to a platform account. Human verification can be manipulated. He called each of these "good equipment costs money" and then never counted the total. A motion that says "entirely" inherits every one of those line items, and he has offered no sum.

On vulnerable users, his answer is to issue devices. My answer stands: that is a procurement program, a support program, and a replacement program, funded by the same services already stretched thin. He has not shown the money. He has shown enthusiasm.

On lock-in, he replied that a physical key avoids the tech giants. True, but the motion does not specify physical keys. It specifies passkeys, and the dominant passkey implementations sync through platform ecosystems. He cannot claim the benefit of one design and disown the cost of the one people will actually use.

I never argued that passwords are perfect. I argued that "entirely" is a word with a bill attached, and my opponent never paid it. Passkeys should be offered, encouraged, and made cheap to adopt. That is a real upgrade. Replacing passwords entirely is a slogan with the meter running.

Vote against the motion. Keep the strong door, keep the side gate watched, and let the accounting hold.