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

My opponent accepts new debate.org users as having voted as having been a likely possibility as shown in the comment below: "I regard that or something close as the most likely possibility." Lets look back at my opponent's original conclusion: "But now when you look at it, due to votes not being counted after accounts close, and people going back and voting against me (and probably others too) without actually reading the debates, out of spite, it says I lost." By acknowledging the high likelihood of new users having been the ones to make those votes, my opponent's point weakens tremendously, since his case revolves around voting system abuse. Again, my opponent has been advocating that bad voters waited to make their votes to reduce suspicion. This doesn't mesh well with the acknowledgment that these voters could have very well been new to this site. With that noted I have no further reason to address this section of the debate and will proceed onto the next part. With the matter of late votes being addressed, there is still the matter of voting wrongly. I'll address this in a later part of this rebuttal My opponent insists that if they did not feel persuaded, they should have simply refrained from voting. The only way this would be the only justifiable action would be if my opponent's opponent did not attempt to provide any means of persuasion. On the contrary, his opponent made an argument in the opening round. If one didn't feel that my opponent refuted his opponent's position, taking the time to vote for the instigator would be justifiable. About expanding the argument: I still insist that my opponent could have done this. After all, his position was in negation of keeping the curfew time in California. His basic argument against this was that it infringed upon the values upheld in the US constitution. However, this is not the only means of advocating the abolishment of curfew laws. My opponent could have easily cited specific instances of detrimental effects curfew laws have had on our society in the past. Furthermore, he could have even provided evidence to show that curfew programs don't directly correlate with the reduction of juvenile crimes. He could have even provided his audience with the usual effects such suppression has on juveniles. About wanting others ignorant of the problem: My opponent suggests that he was ideally referring to the problem. If that is the case, then I suppose I would agree (to a certain extent); bad voters would IDEALLY not want others to know of their nefarious plots to sabotage voting. However, even when referring to the matter ideally, there are still problems. Ideally, an individual isn't going to wait one or two weeks to vote on a random debate.org debate. I understand the Internet is commonly considered a melting pot for individuals with no lives, but even this is going a bit far. Ideally, other interests would outweigh plotting to such degree as there is little to benefits here. Furthermore, I've already shown that this advantage is hardly ever the case as people are willing to abuse the voting on day 1 while knowing that no one will generally do anything about it. For the purposes of this debate (as in, I do not support what I'm about to say UNIVERSALLY), a known and an unknown problem are equally bad. In this case, the problem is bad voting. Regardless of whether or not we are aware of it, it's going to occur due to the fact that there is no real retribution awaiting it. There is more on this in a later section of my rebuttal. As for everyone but the debater knowing that there is a problem weeks later, this is definitely false. Believe or not, many users frequent the debate.org archives to view past debates. Heck, some may even find debate.org debates of their interest accidentally via (Yahoo, Google, etc) search engine. Besides, I've provided evidence of debate.org voting results which have dramatically changed after the time period listed in my opponent's resolution, so his claim is clearly false. My opponent claims that my "lack of persuasion" objection is more applicable to my round 2 citation than it is to his round 1 citation. This is not, as all the debaters in question contributed to their debates as much as their opponents did. Naturally, one would question my claim by pointing out the fact that my opponent did post in every round of his debate whereas his opponent did not. To that, I advise that you consider the content of what he stated in round 2 and 3 (there was virtually no real content). After taking that into account, I would advise that you go back to what I said earlier on concerning how not all voters have the same voting styles (many prefer to be persuaded)(many won't actually vote on whether not someone forfeits the round, especially if the other debate does not point that out). I agree that most people want to be regarded as intelligent, but considering that the voting system allows people to vote anonymously, I don't believe they would have to worry about their intelligence personally being persecuted. So yes, the only real negative result is trouble. And as I've suggested on the matter of sapere aude, trouble won't occur as long as bad voters do their dirty deed within the rules of this website. As for "knowledge vs action", action is certainly preferable as most of us are already aware of the bad voting that occurs. Although for the sake of the argument, even when one becomes aware, what good does it do alone? My opponent claims that he insists that the voters he was referring to were correct. I've partially addressed this above, but will expand a bit here. Taking into account different voting styles, my opponent has no means of objectively concluding that the original seven user's votes were correct. I provided reasons as to why the later voters may have decided to vote differently, so my opponent's point does not stand. As for the typical account closing reasons, I'm referring to the fact that many have their accounts closed on the basis on possessing multiple accounts, excessive spamming on the website or pretty much anything else that violates the rules. Finally, I still insist that my opponent's plan conflicts with the Administrators' plan. I believe that my opponent's explanation differs from his original intention, but (for the sake of the argument) lets assume that it was what he meant all along. My opponent suggests that Administrators providing the tools to freeze the polls amounts to debate.org freezing the polls. My opponent even provides an analogy. However, I believe this is rather misleading. First, the provider cannot always be responsible for the one(s) he/she provides for. For instance, let's say a criminal is brought into a court of law over the matter of having shot a police officer. During the trial, it is found it that the criminal purchased his/her firearm from Wal-Mart. By my opponent's argument, Wal-Mart would be to blame for what the criminal decided to do with the firearm he purchased. Heck, in relation to this resolution, here is how it would look: Wal-Mart should shoot Police Officers. Going back to my opponent's analogy, providing someone with food does not amount to feeding them. My mother can buy some milk, cheerios, bowls, and spoons for me. However, if I am the one who pours cheerios into a bowl, pours milk into a bowl of cheerios, and uses the spoon to place the combination of milk and cheerios into my mouth, I'm the one who is feeding me; my mother is not the one who is feeding me. Clearly, just because debate.org provides its users with certain tools, it does not mean that debate.org is the one using these tools for their purposes. Thus, with that point negated, the plan of the administrators of the plan of debate.org conflict; one plan has the users do the work whereas the other plan is completely up to the administrators. Thus, I urge you to vote con. Thank you.