Debate.org user's need to rethink some things

I'll first clarify that I love this site. This argument is one that's been going on in my head ever since I started noticing some distressing trends in the debates throughout the site. The user's need to rethink several aspects of how they use this great site. Here are my main pet peeves: 1) Voting - While I can't be 100% certain, it seems very clear that some of the voting tends to be bias. Many of the votes seem to lean toward the more socially acceptable side, or whichever one they personally agree with. Need I remind everyone that once the voting period starts, the words above the debate do NOT say "Which person's side do you like better?", no, instead it says "Who won this debate". Analogy: The topic is "kill the jews". A neo Nazi has posted it and is Pro. All three (for standard) rounds are compiled of statistics from credible sources, quotes, opinions, and cold hard facts. Con responds to only the first round saying "Nu-uh" and misses the other two. Who won the debate? According to the numbers at the end of the debate, most likely con. This is not right. Anyone has the right to post their opinion and back it up. The fact that their topic may not have agreed with you should not be taken into consideration, rather the skill and ability of the debater to try and prove a point. If you feel the need to justify your anonymous vote so that the many faceless patrons of the internet don't think of you as a Nazi as well, you can say so in the comments part. 2) Length - To quote Yoda, "Size matters not". In some cases this is true, as well as debating. If you can make your point clear enough so that anyone who has no prior knowledge of the subject can grasp what your talking about within two sentences, well then, good for you. However, most people cannot. Two or three sentences in most cases cannot fully explain the depth to which most debates can go to. They usually lack points for the contender to work off of, and explanations that make the pro's opinion clear. As I said before, every debate should assume that the audience has had absolutely no prior learning's on the subject, and it is your place to educate. 3) Observer attacks - If a debate was live, an audience member yelling a personal attack to either of the opponents would not be tolerated. The same concept should apply here. Your personal disagreement with the speaker does not warrant any kind of insult. This was made perfectly clear when all users signed onto the site. 4) Forfeits - Within an hour, a Neanderthal discovered fire. Within a day, most of the Constitution was signed. Yet somehow, within 2 days, people can't write a 10000 character or less rebuttal. This is ridiculous. If you don't have the time to debate, don't agree to. 5) Clarity - As my future opponent writes your rebuttal, pointing out the plethora of complications to my points in extreme detail, I'd like you to look at the bottom right of the test box, and you'll see a neat little tool that I've found to be very helpful: spell check. I very strongly suggest using it. Not only will it make your examinations clearer to the public, but it will also make you seem more intelligent. And sometimes, more than not, seeing is believing. (I just used it and am amazed I spelled 'plethora' right) These are my main disagreements concerning the user community of Debate.org. Someone prove me wrong.