Debaters should not be given the option of mandating a 5-12 question MC quiz for their debates here.

Thanks for the topic Logical, this will be fun as always. First and foremost I must concede your entire first paragraph to you. I definitely agree that people either: A. Invite friends just for the purpose of voting on their debates. Those friends in turn don't bother reading the debates. B. Create multiple accounts under multiple email addresses and rigging the voting system. And I of course think it is a rather large problem. I also think that perhaps people should not be allowed to close their account but thats a different story. So first I'm going to cover the problems with your idea and then I'll go on to give my own. "The plan would work rather simply. Before each round, debaters would have the option of creating a Multiple Choice quiz that consist of what the actual information within the round is. Each debater would be allowed to create such quizzes for each round, but would only be allowed to ask a maximum of 12 questions for the entire debate." >>The first apparent problem with this is the fact that it would be created before round. Which would mean that the quiz would only be over the first round of debate. Thus all that faulty voters have to do is read the first round of the pro or con and then answer the questions. >>The second fault would be that it doesn't actually bother solving your problem as outlined in your first paragraph. Let's take a look at your conclusion. "I advocate that this solution is rather effective as it could (again, initiating these quizzes are optional) coerce voters to actually read and comprehend debates." >>While yes it could coerce people into actually reading and comprehending the debate it will not coerce them into voting for who they feel won. Instead they will vote for who the came to vote for in the first place and then be mildly annoyed that they had to read it. Also this obviously doesn't work for my second scenario where debaters create multiple accounts to rig the system either. So this brings me to the third problem with your idea. That being, to implement your system would take time. It would either come into play along with the next update, which will take longer to be initiated because of this extra idea. Or it would have to come in sometime later. Thus I will now offer you, and my voters a counter advocacy that will solve your problems (and mine) in a more efficient way. As the soonest your plan could come into effect would be with the next update I will also be targeting my plan for that time. My plan is simply this, the next update is going to create the ability to form groups. http://www.debate.org... bottom right hand corner. So I suggest at that time we form a group called "Debate 20" or any other variation with the number 20 in it. The idea of this group would be simple. To be in the group you need 20 wins/ties (as long as the wins/ties are legitimate). Not exactly a hard feat, you could probably do it easily in a month if you had the time. Within the group we will be able to hold debates that only members of the group can see and vote on. This will solve for all of the disadvantages I already brought up on your case. Being. 1. It would not allow for faulty voters quite as easily as the current system. Voters would have to be somewhat serious debaters who actually took the time to get 20 wins and understand the system well. Creating multiple accounts would be horrifying as one would still have to get the 20 wins. Members of the 20 group would be able to deny access to anybody who looked like they may have created two new accounts and debated them against each other in order to get easy wins. (For example a debate that contained 1000 characters combined would not count as a real win) 2. Once again this problem is solved by the difficulty of getting faulty voters into the system. 3. This will not take any extra time to develop; meaning it won't slow the current update down at all. As the current update it already developing the group idea we won't have to wait any longer for my idea. Yours of course will set back the next update by a little bit. I advocate that my solution is more effective than my opponents which is not effective, as it is my burden in this round to uphold the resolution -.- . I feel creating a sort of high debate society would not only create a mildly educated community in which to gain feedback on debates and comments but also would be a goal for new debaters to strive towards. Thanks, I stand open for my opponents speech.