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

In my description of the plan, I state that quizzes would be allowed to be created for each round. The voters would have to pass ALL of the quizzes before being allowed to vote. My opponent aggrees that my plan could coerce people into reading/comprehending the debate, it would not coerce them into voting for the individual who they honestly believed to have won. However, nowhere in my opening argument have I promised that my plan would do that as I don't believe there to be any reasonable means of coercing someone to do such on this website. What my plan does is drastically decrease the chances of voters voting without even being aware of what was being debated. If voters merely wish to come and vote for who they came to vote for in the first place, the debaters can make it very difficult for those kinds of voters through providing the right questions. For if those voters fail the quiz, they don't get to vote. ;) No, my plan doesn't completely halt those with multiple accounts, but neither does my opponent's plan (more on that later). However, my plan can discourage it as taking a quiz X (the number of accounts) times over will be rather tedious. It will be even more tedious if the debater who makes the quiz decides to make it very difficult for those who haven't read or for those don't COMPLETELY understands the entire debate. Lets not forget that users who have multiple accounts are typically easy to spot as they tend to have the same IP addresses. As for taking time, I believe it's fair to suggest that my opponent has no knowledge of the inner workings of this website; he does not know the capabilities of the website's administration (not to mention that many online quiz programs are inexpensive or free even for a website of this size). However, my main focus of this rebuttal is the fact that I make no mention of when this program should be accessible within my opening argument. I'm merely advocating that it's a good idea (if you'll notice, I don't urge immediacy). Thus, this is straw man on my opponent's part. Claiming that it will take one 20 minutes to drive to Wal-Mart in no way negates the claim that Wal-Mart lettuce is healthy. Now let's address my opponent's plan: The first glaring problem with my opponent's plan is that it only allows debaters with 20 wins/ties to join. This is problematic as MANY (many) debate. org users have not attained that many wins. Many have other activities to attend to. Heck, one of the more skilled debaters of this website (. http://www.debate.org... ) has been on this website for months, and yet he doesn't qualify for my opponent's plan. Surely my opponent doesn't intend to uphold the value of time as it will surely take quite a long time for many users of this website to be qualified. Re #1: Voters: My opponent does my job for me through pointing out the problem with faulty voters. As my opponent suggests, creating faulty accounts and having them debate against one another is quite common on debate. org. That said, my opponent's means of countering these nefarious acts completely defeat the purpose. He suggests that members of the "Debate 20 group" be allowed to decide who is worthy of getting into the group and who is not. If it's up to the members to decide who is worthy of getting in, members could very well keep certain members out on the basis of spite. Not only that, but the idea of members being able to kick someone out of the group on the basis that they THINK someone else has been cheating is truly problematic to the purpose which my opponent wishes to uphold as there are many legitimate cases where members win the kind of debates my opponent mentions. Re #2 : Through usage of multiple accounts to "win" debates, it is hardly difficult. My opponent suggest a means of preventing such a tactic, but I've already covered the problems with that above. Re #3: Actually, debaters having to win 20 debates will take quite a long time. Even if we consider what my opponent believes to be a flaw in my plan, all members would have access to it when the program was initiated. As for my opponent's plan, getting access to this group which he proposes would be an inconvenience for many. Creating my opponent's high debate society sounds nice at first glance, but with the problems mentioned, it will no doubt produce more complaints than what the Debate. org Administration is already receiving; it is far more trouble than it's worth. I now stand ready for my opponent's second rebuttal (well actually, I'm not really standing, but you get the picture).