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

"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." Not at all. "However, for all we know, the ones who voted late could very well have created accounts around the time they had actually voted. " I regard that or something close as the most likely possibility. "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." Compatible with 2 and definitely true unless they found it with the site's search feature, a highly unlikely development. " At any rate, with so many possibilities, there is not enough evidence for my opponent to make his conclusion" The essential points of the debate in question are these: That their votes occurred very late (I personally observed that much), and that their votes were obviously wrong (anyone reading this can observe that much). Unless we are to argue that they are simply stupid, spite is the other possibility. It is of no consequence when they joined. " 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." If they did not feel persuaded, since my opponent at that time could not possibly have persuaded them, the obvious solution is not to vote. I could not have "expanded on the arguments" when their essence was already fully laid out. The essence was extremely simple, because the issue was. To add more without the information provided by what people are objecting to is an absurdity. If the voters have their own objections not made by the one debating with me, they can inform me via a comment. " 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." I state that IDEALLY they do not want others to know of the problem, e.g. others not knowing happens to be an advantage for them. Some might not take advantage of this, but it still isn't a good idea to leave that advantage there. Why? Sapere aude. A problem you know about is not as bad as one you don't know about. When people win a debate they clearly lost right after it ends, everyone involved knows something is wrong. When it happens weeks later, no one but the debater does (unless you start a debate like I did and bring it up :P). Also, the objection "they weren't persuaded" applies a whole lot more to the walmart debate you just linked to than the one I was in, because Kleptin's opponent, though using fallacious arguments, did use arguments. Fallacies exist because people believe them, if no one does they disappear (i.e. people stop using them). "However, if bad voters aren't actually violating the rules, then voting unfairly won't cause them any trouble." You assume that the only negative result is "trouble." Most people, however, want to be regarded as smart. That doesn't happen when they operate in a stupid manner. :D "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." Again, sapere aude. It's not something being done about it that makes openness good, it is the knowledge itself. " 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." And how did those presumably good voters happen to find out about your debate? "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." Not really. I insist that their vote was correct, and had it not been we would have learned something as long as their votes were early. I make no presumptions as to the reasons for their vote. So bye bye most of that paragraph. :D "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." The typical account closing reason on this site, as far as I can tell, is people closing their own accounts because they don't want to be on the site anymore. " 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. " There is not, in fact, a conflict. My resolution states that debate.org should freeze the polls. It says nothing about "in all cases," or "against the will of the instigator." Debate.org providing the tools to freeze the polls amounts to debate.org freezing the polls in those cases in which it is used (just as providing someone with food amounts to feeding them). If it is used twice (and it will be, I guarantee it :D), debate.org will have fulfilled the resolution.