Voters should be required to post their reasoning behind each vote they make.

YL made an interesting claim during the previous round. He claimed that the largest argument in his case was that losses would be justified with the new system in tact. Quite frankly, I can't help sense something fishy about this. Recall what he said at the beginning of round 1: YL: "In debates where I feel I have clearly won its not so bad because to some extent I can justify my loss in my head with the thought, "Wow... those people are idiots!" Here, he clearly points out that he can already justify losses with the current system. Also, if you read further in his argument, you'll see that he insinuates that loss justification only becomes an issue against opponent's whom he felt he equally performed against. YL: "To lose a debate that I am unsure of how I did on and personally feel was close is o.k. in itself. But when I do not know why I have lost that debate I can't actually modify my strategy or improve my debating skills." That being said, this should help you see how relevant my first counter in round 1 was. Also, this alone was the reason I didn't bother commenting on the debates he cited in his first offensive argument. Why? Look at how he describes them: YL: "Here are instances where this would help me justify my loss as I feel I have easily won these rounds." I think this about covers the idea that I've supposedly "dropped" the largest argument. Now, lets refute round 3 from top to bottom. YL once again resorts to the straw man fallacy by telling you that I am attempting to prove that comments are not helpful. However, if you take the time to read what I've been saying in both of the previous rounds, you'll note that I've been suggesting that comments are generally not helpful (in fact, one of my arguments even hinges on the RATE of helpful comments). As for bandwidth, my opponent resorts to the red herring fallacy. "HOW MUCH" bandwidth being used is COMPLETELY irrelevant. The fact of the matter (as I've suggested in round 2) is that they would be wasting bandwidth. Although to pacify this objection, it would notably be a large amount considering that this program applies to every single vote that is made on this website. Next, my opponent admits to having agreed with my argument of how one is to become a better debater. With that merely being noted, this effectively dismisses his argument that concerns justifying a loss. As I've explained above, this was in response to his problem concerning loss justification as YL only implies that to be a considerable issue when up against an equally talented debater. My response was in response to the "problems" which come about through not having the ability to justify losses. In other words, even my opponent agrees that I've effectively refuted his lost justification argument during round 1. Re Response 2: Once again, YL does nothing to prove that users would be FORCED to leave HELPFUL comments. He does nothing refute my round 2 argument on this matter, so you're free to dismiss his rebuttal here for the same reasons. Re Point 1a: This assumes that flame wars are always caused due to some user being provocative towards the debaters. This is not the case. Rather, it is the extremely argumentative debaters who I am concerned about. A user can leave a comment that refers to the debaters as gods, but all it takes is a mere difference in belief/opinion to get an argumentative (and I mean that in a negative tone) debater started. Re Point 1-2: I believe YL is neglecting what he said in the previous round. He said that this system would make it easier to spot people with multiple accounts. How so is the question one might ask? Well currently, a so-called "means" of spotting someone with multiple accounts is to check what debates he/she comments on. In fact, this line of reasoning has encouraged users (other than my paranoid stalker) to believe my alter egos are none other than YL and Kleptin. Admins have made it clear that they want users to report users whom they suspect of having numerous accounts (as they can't just go around looking for users themselves). Clearly, by being able to see the users who vote, users will speculate far more than they do now (as it has only been anonymous voting which has limited users so far) and do just what the admins have asked. Re Point 1-3: Specious example as only a user with an agenda has spread such propaganda. Besides, users have plenty of reason to doubt this as the Webmaster himself has PERSONALLY clarified on this issue here: http://www.debate.org... Re: Point 2: My opponent uses the straw man fallacy here by claiming that I've been arguing in favor of him deserving all of the votes being made against him. This is not the case as my argument clearly boiled down to the fact that users could very well have been justified to vote against his arguments. I even proved this to be so. Oh, and these are classified as being debates where my opponent believed he easily won, hence more reason to dismiss these citations. Again, as my opponent points out, loss justifications are only needed in debates where he has doubt in whether or not he won. Re: Point 3: Not really. The multiple computers and friends points were merely shown as being possible ways for a troll to undermine YL's system, but creating B.S. comments is infinitely simpler than the other two. With that alone being noted, the slight improvement would be as much as an increase as adding .000000001 to 1. In other words, trolls would have to spend 4 seconds (spamming the votes) rather than 1 second. Again, is this really worth using more bandwidth? Re: Point 4: The system will prompt users to make comments PERIOD. As for innocent users being bullied, this is a pretty large consequence. What do users do when they get bullied enough? They either leave the website (which decrease the number of hits this website gets, hence less advertisement revenue for debate.org, hence less opportunities for upgrades) or fight back (which is where flame wars can come in). I agree that users don't have to comment, but that doesn't mean they aren't encouraged to. Lets not forget that many of the users here are still in grade school, so the kind of maturity which YL brings up is not likely. As for Solarman, this is a guy who often generates dozens of comments on his comment sections (and not friendly spirited ones, mind you). If anything, YL provided me with evidence for my claim. As for the final point, how often do users make a whole new debate rather than start debates in the comment section? I agree that users COULD make rule-bound debates, but the fact of the matter is that slug fests are often carried out in the comment section. Getting it out of their system: The comment section is made so that users may COMMENT on the debate rather than CONTINUE the debate (this is against the rules). Closing: Contrary to what YL states, I did not drop any of his arguments. The loss justification issue was dealt with as far back as round one (to an argument which my opponent coincidentally agreed with). As for Flame Wars, they are influenced (and often started) by the very factors which he advocates in this debate; YL's system would likely augment the number of flame wars debate.org has to deal with. As for advantages, these are all instances where my opponent has conceded that debate.org would merely be infinitesimally benefited by his system. Given all the massive CONS that come with the system, one can certainly say that it's more trouble than it's worth. As for the debate which my opponent cites, both sides made errors ( I even point out errors from both sides in my comment). And as you'll note, users have commented on that page without really even explaining why they voted. What would prevent them from doing this under the new system? Absolutely Nothing. Therefore, I urge you to vote CON. Thanks for the debate!