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

You couldn't just agree with me could you.... Had to start a long drawn out debate about it. So let me begin by examining your first paragraph in which you state that "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." >>Let us apply this to its fullest potential. 5 round debate, 10 rounds total, 12 questions per round. Voters potentially have to answer 120 questions to be able to vote. Yet you turn around and accuse my plan of being tedious and time consuming. Your plan would discourage legitimate voters from voting. Then you go on in your second paragraph to prove my point with this statement: "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." >>People who came solely to vote for a friend are not any different than other people. When my opponent says we can make it very difficult for those kinds of voters what he means is that we can make it difficult for every voter. Thus he is actually promoting people with multiple accounts to vote and discouraging legitimate votes. A person with multiple accounts is only going to have to read the debate once before answering the questions and casting multiple votes, legitimate voters are going to have to read it one time per vote. Even if person with multiple accounts has to answer questions multiple times they know what the answers are so it is nowhere near as time consuming. My opponents third and fourth paragraphs actually help my case, but I will get to that later. Onto defending my case. "The first glaring problem with my opponent's plan is that it only allows debaters with 20 wins/ties to join. " >>Ah this is not a problem at all. It does many good things. First and foremost it functions as an incentive for debaters to get wins so that they my join the group. Secondly it doesn't disallow the debaters in the group from voting on normal debates outside the group. Thus we still have at least some percentage of fair votes going into the entire pool, this will doubtlessly help good debaters gain wins. Third you voice concern that PreacherFred will not be allowed in the group, however when I look at preacherFreds record I notice he has outstandingly won every single debate. What motivation does he have to participate in either of our plans? He seems very content and happy to me. Onto the three points. 1. Your argument was that if members can simply choose who to kick out they can stop being from joining through spite etc.... However this is where we need to examine what I actually stated in my first argument, being, "Members of the 20 group would be able to deny access to anybody who looked like they may have created two new accounts and debated them against each other in order to get easy wins." Now there is a very easy way to tell if they created two accounts and debated them against each other. This being a quote from your 3rd paragraph. "Lets not forget that users who have multiple accounts are typically easy to spot as they tend to have the same IP addresses." >> See the problem with this in your 3rd paragraph is the fact that the administrators have to check over 3000 people, at this point, to see if they have the same IP address. In our group we can mandate everyone uses MSN messenger, G-talk, yahoo messenger etc... and check their IP addresses through command prompt. An easy way to decide if debaters are on multiple accounts or not. Decisions can also be made on a majority vote, this would negate the idea that members may be disallowed because of spite. 2). My system makes it far more tedious to get faulty voters in than my opponents does. In my opponents system all you have to do is actually read the debate then take the quiz multiple times for each faulty voter. However, faulty voters in my system require that a user goes through the effort of debating himself 20 times in order to be accepted. That is rather tedious if your only motivation is to become a false voter. 3). On my third point your argument is simply that debaters will have to take a long time in order to access my system. However as we can see my system will come into play before your system as you prove in your 4th paragraph when you say, "if you'll notice, I don't urge immediacy" thus my plan will come into being beforehand and will start to encourage debaters to win debates long before my opponents tedious system comes into play. I now sit open for my opponents final round. May it be a good one!