Voters should be required to post their reasoning behind each vote they make.

My opponent once again begins his speech attempting to disprove the idea that comment are not helpful, unfortunately for my opponent, he has already conceded the fact that they are almost never helpful. Which means, at times, they are helpful. My opponent attempts to justify his argument by arguing that it would be a waste of bandwidth but this argument has no impact what-so-ever, as we have no idea how much bandwidth this site has or can use. From here the Con goes on to offer me this argument, "Also, notice how the PRO drops my argument which explains how becoming a better debater depends more on the debates themselves rather than the audience." and yes, I whole heartedly agree, however this does not mean that the audience can still help to some extents. Re Response 2: Apparently my opponent cannot see how good debaters that feel themselves prestigious would be coerced into leaving helpful comments. My response to my opponents argument is simply the fact that I would be coerced into leaving helpful comments. This is a benefit. I believe the rest of my argument speaks for itself, the voters can decide. Onto my 4 points of offense. Re: Point 1 1. My opponent suggests that letting people see who had voted for them or against them would somehow start flame wars. This however can be stopped in 1 easy way and adds benefit to my case. a. Commenter's who actually leave meaningful and nice comments will be less likely to have people start flame wars against them. This is an incentive to leave something aside from, "I vote pro, 25 characters...." People who actually leave something that shows some amount of thought put into it will have a lesser chance of other users getting the idea that that user may be flaming their debates. (lol) 2. The con comes to the conclusion that having this system would increase reports going to the administrators but there is absolutely no proof to back up this claim. If anything I believe such a system would help to dispel hunches that people are voting against particular users in mass. My opponent then goes on to stay that voters who were thought to have multiple accounts would be ostracized, this is simply not true, please check this debate: http://www.debate.org... those three people have clearly not been ostracized. Re: Point 2 My opponent argues that I deserved all the votes brought against me in both the cases that I presented however my opponent nor I at this time has absolutely no way of knowing this. This is one of the main points of my case, if we can see who voted, then we will be able to tell for sure who those voters were. To be able to tell that some percentage of those 7 voters had randomly voted against me in every debate would be enormously helpful in me justifying my loses to myself. My opponent then advocates that trolls should not be flamed against and yes to some extent I agree with him but have already covered this in 1.2. Re: Point 3 Once again my opponent has conceded me an advantage to my system. He argues that it would only give trolls a slightly harder time as they would need multiple computers, or B.S comments, or friends. This means that my system in some small way does prevent trolls who do not have multiple computers, or are lazy, or are not friendly people. Re: Point 4 My point was simply that this system will prompt myself to write good comments on every debate that are hopefully helpful. My opponent countered by saying that innocent users will be bullied but this is of no consequence. No user has to go back and respond or even read someone bullying them about how they voted. In fact this site makes it very easy to ignore when someone is mad at you, check Solarman1969 for a great example of this phenomenon. Finally my opponent argues that this will force debates to continue in the comments section thus sucking up bandwidth. This point has absolutely no standing as those users could just as easily make a whole new debate which would doubtlessly suck up more bandwidth. It is actually an advantage for them to be getting it out of their system in the comments section. As a brief summary I would like to point out that my opponent dropped the largest argument on my case. That being me being able to justify all my losses. My opponent brings up many points on flame wars but considering the amount of flame wars already in the status quo this actually isn't a disadvantage, and will be capable of dispelling misconceptions about innocent users. I would also like to point out that my opponent has conceded a great deal of small advantages to me, ranging from some comments will be helpful to preventing troll voters in some small way. To finalize my point I would like to point readers to this debate: http://www.debate.org... In which I have no idea how I lost as my opponent didn't actually uphold his side of the resolution. Thank you for the great debate!