There should be a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it (DDO)

"I will start off by admitting to something of which I am not proud of: sometimes I vote on DDO debates without reading the entire debate. I'll skim through the opening statements, and get a gist of what each party is arguing, and place my vote even though I am in no place to do so. There is a very simple solution to this problem. " I have an even simpler solution that involves voting without reading the debate: counter vote bombing. "Debate. org should implement an option when starting a debate to allow people to set a minimum amount of time someone must spend on their debate (hopefully reading it! ) to be allowed to vote. This time could either be a fixed time or a time reflecting the word count in the debate. " The resolution is that there should be a minimum time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it, not that there should be an OPTION to set the minimum time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it. I am not opposed to making a minimum time optional; I am opposed to making it required. 1. Troll debates: Sometimes, the contender ignores the resolution completely "Why should debate. org put useless, 'offtopic' debates before high-quality, thoughtprovoking ones. Also, in cases such as troll debates, many votes are not needed like are needed in lengthy and high-quality debates because the winner is obvious. " I concede that troll debates are unimportant and can be closed. 2. Rule violations: Sometimes, rules violated in the first round of the debate determine the way voters ought vote. "Voters should still be required to read the debate before voting, otherwise, their vote is simply binary logic in action. Also, if the rule violtaion [sic] takes place so close to the beginning of the debate as you're suggesting is necessary as to make this time limit a nuisance, why do people even need to vote on it? It's a useless debate and should NOT be put before useful debates. " If Con takes the time to put together a superb argument, then just because Pro ignores the resolution or violates one of the rules is not a reason to ignore Con's argument or close the debate. Instead, it is important for people to vote for Con so that Con's effort can be rewarded with a win. 3. (Fast) Forfeits: Sometimes, the contender forfeits in the first round "In this case, the word count will most likely be quite low and the time required will not be high allowing at least one person to vote. Also, should debate. org value people's win/loss ratio over DEBATE. The ENTIRE POINT OF THIS WEBSITE. I think not. " How does not setting a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it devalue a debate where one side forfeits? "All of the situations my opponent described above should not be dealth [sic] with in a way that makes for poor, unjustified voting in legitimate debates. Debates like the ones mentioned above should be dealt with by a 'report' feature in which a set of people simply remove these debates, not subject them to the resource-wasting process of user votes that should be allocated to legitimate debates. " This is unrelated to the resolution. Regardless of whether or not troll debates, etc are allowed or reported, there is no reason not to make setting a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it optional. Indeed, not setting a limit makes it is easier for people to counter obvious vote bombs without having to read the debate.