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

I would also ask that voters vote on who presents the better argument and support their position better. So to begin, my opponent starts out attempting to prove that comments on debating performance are not helpful. This is simply not true. Any debater reading this debate has seen at least one comment that opened their eyes up to a new idea or an alternative way to which they could have debated. Even my opponent admits to this in saying, "Having been an online debater for a number of years, the audience's opinion has almost never been of much help". The words no notice in this sentence would be "almost never". My opponent once again admits to their being a benefit when he says, "Sure, there are times when a voter will actually provide some beneficial reasons as to why he/she voted impartially on the debate, but this is sadly not often. " I can only agree with my opponents two statements and move on as disagreeing would be arguing against myself. Next my opponent puts two point of offense against my case. 1. Summary: "My opponent is aware that this plan will no doubt encourage irrelevant posts in the comment section. " Response: I am well aware. However once again there is some benefit, I will touch on this more in the second point. 2. Summary: "If the majority of voters who vote don't comment now, what will be their incentive to actually take the time to EXPLAIN (to the level my opponent wishes) why they voted when this program is initiated? " My opponent is fat! Response: In most cases this will be true but it also offers more benefits that I will get to shortly. It should also be noted however that some debaters consider themselves to be good debaters and do not always add a comment when voting. Mandating this comment will force such debaters, as potentially myself and my opponent, to write something. As such debaters desire to uphold their honorable position on this site they will doubtlessly include an intelligent remark. Having thoroughly debunked my opponents offensive claims I will now add my own defense onto this case. 1. Having everyone mandated a comment will quickly show who is voting. While it may not always show why, it will show debaters who do vote. This solves for my problem in my first round where I cannot determine why I would be losing a round. To see what voters had voted against me would make it easy to detect trolls and make it easy for me to justify loses in my mind when people I had previously thought to be dumb voters vote against me. Here are instances where this would help me justify my loss as I feel I have easily won these rounds. . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... 2. Having a mandated comment will quickly show the entire voting community which voters are simply bad at voting. Here are two examples of debates where I was voted against despite my opponent making no responses to my contentions, these voters are obviously bad voters in the sense that they are overly biased: . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... 3. Solves for the mass troll voters. Being the voters who disagree with me on one issue and thereby go through and vote against me on every debate. My opponent has also had this happen to him occasionally. In fact, if my voters would be so kind the read the comment section of this debate they will come across multiple debaters disgruntled by this phenomenon. 4. Having mandatory comments prompts me to write a good comment for each and every debate. In the status quo I feel I usually offer good reasons as to why I voted but sometimes I do not bother offering a reason. Having compulsory comments would make this so. Thank you, I stand open for my opponents speech.