Debate.org should freeze the polls a week after the last round.

My opponent continues to advocate that the most recent voters in his example likely did not have legitimate reasons for their votes. However, if I understand what my opponent is suggesting correctly, he is advocating that the voters who decided to vote against him were members of this website during the time period at which his debate had finished. However, for all we know, the ones who voted late could very well have created accounts around the time they had actually voted. There's also the possibility that users who were watching (and were interested in) one of my opponent's later debates decided to browse through his profile and vote accordingly. At any rate, with so many possibilities, there is not enough evidence for my opponent to make his conclusion. As for the matter of forfeiting every round, this still doesn't change the point I'm making. One of the purposes of debate is to persuade an audience. I advocate that it's possible that those voters didn't feel persuaded by my opponent's case. If that is the case, my opponent could have very well utilized his other rounds to expand on his arguments to increase the chances of getting voted for. However, he instead treated the debate as if it were a one round debate. My opponent states that bad voters do not want others to know of the problem, but he is overestimating the intelligence of the bad voters here. For instance, in one of Kleptin's debates . . . (http://www.debate.org... ) . . . he reported that he was he losing 9-1 within merely one day of the debates conclusion (the report of this can be found on this page in the comment section here: http://www.debate.org... In this instance, the "bad voters" voted rather quickly. To add fuel to the fire, the primary suspect of this voter sabotage even spammed the comment section of the debate Kleptin was referring to. My opponent suggests that these "bad voters" don't want people to know of the problem, but they have no reason to care whether or not people are aware of the problem. Don't get me wrong as if a bad voter is using multiple accounts, there is reason to reduce suspicion. However, if bad voters aren't actually violating the rules, then voting unfairly won't cause them any trouble. They can vote on as many debates as they want to and get away with their actions. And yes, one of my examples is rather open and obvious, yet it took more than two weeks for something to be done about it. As for "good voters" not having the time to go back and check up on debates, I don't see how this assertion can be supported. In fact, I can only see evidence against this claim. Keep in mind that in the Superman debate I had pointed out earlier, I was trailing behind for more than a week. Not to mention that my debate was far from the most recent debates page. It was the work of "good voters" who voted in favor of my case. Am I suggesting that good voters are more likely to vote on past debates than bad voters? Based on what we know, we cannot make the kind of conclusion my opponent is making. Before I go on to my opponents last rebutted argument, lets observe something rather important. Throughout this debate, my opponent and I have been using the terms "good voters" and "bad voters." I've only used these terms while arguing with the acceptance of several of my opponent's assumptions (which I did purely for the sake of exploiting every flaw within my opponent's arguments). What are these assumptions you might ask? Well for starters, looking back at my opponent's example, he insists that the original 7 who voted in favor of his case were good voters. Question: How does my opponent know that? For all he knows, those voters could have voted without even reading the debate; they could have voted in spite of my opponent's opponent; they could have voted merely because they happen to have some personal interest in my opponent. The only comments provided in my opponent's debate were his own and mine (which were made rather recently). There is absolutely nothing to suggest that they voted because they believed that my opponent won that debate or that they had believe that the instigator had presented weak arguments. The ones who voted in favor of his case could have very well been bad voters. And if these voters have had their accounts closed for the typical "account-closing" reasons on this site, it doesn't speak too well for their credibility. Finally, my opponent advocates that the new voting system is no disproof of his voting system, but my opponent's plan and Debate.org's plan drastically differ. The Debate.org Administration insists that Users should have the ability freeze polls (in accordance to their convenience) after the last round. If a user has the desire to keep his/her poll open forever, he will still be allowed to do that. If a user believes that his/her poll should be open for 7 days or MORE/LESS, he/she will be able to have that wish fulfilled. Whether or not my opponent personally disagrees with such a plan is completely irrelevant as it is his resolution which conflicts with this plan.