All members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in.

I'll start with my opponent's case, and then my case. 1. Ineffective and time consuming. RESPONSE: SO my opponent is arguing that it would be too time consuming, and a vote would count for little to no points. First off, if anything this system would remove any illegit votes, since everyone would have to post a RFD, and people would know who voted where and why, and those voting illegiitimately will be obvious. My opponent states that what if both sides had good speelling and grammar, and sources, and conduct. He claims that this would make voting meaningless. WRONG. If anything, it would make it more meaningful, since the voter has voted honestly. If the Spelling, grammar, sources, and conduct are really the same, then it makes the debate that much better. Its no fun to have a debate where one person decides to forget about any sense of manners and swears every other word. So that part of my opponent's argument has been refuted. My opponent then goes on to say that biased votes will inevitably happen, due to the first 2 criteria my opponent brought up. However, those 2 criteria have no bearing on the debate. The only votes that actually give points are the last 4 criteria. So that argument has been refuted. 2. Unfair and can't be enforced RESPONSE: Look. You can easily get around my opponents argument in the following way: Who says everyone see's the votes? Nowhere have I said that everyone will see everyone's votes. I say that the only people who need to see the people's votes are the debaters. So I propose the following system: Debaters debate. Voters vote. Voters see RFDs, and only voters The votes can be posted, but the RFDs can only be seen by the debaters. That takes care of the first half of this argument. For the second half. So my opponent is arguing that it would be incredibly difficult to monitor all the votes in a debate, and that not all votes will be read. RESPONSE: My opponent is trying to argue that it would be too difficult to monitor all votes, and therefore we should reject my system. The problem with this is that there are a bunch of responses. We could: 1. Get more moderators to handle it. 2. If Webcorp doesn't want to hire them, the current moderators can get a group of people willing to do this. These people would be relatively experienced, and the veterans of the site. They could help and monitor all the votes. 3. After a while, the moderators will be able to do the job quickly and easily, as they begin to learn voting habits of people. CONCLUSION: So my opponent hasn't provided any actual reason as to why people should not post RFDs when they vote. He has only said that it would be difficult to monitor, it would be ineffective, but he hasn't provided any actual reason as to why people should not be allowed to know why they are winning or losing. You can extend all my arguments. BURDENS: The only burden my opponent has set before me is the one to answer all his questions. I have done so. One more reason for an affirmative ballot My opponent has not fulfilled the burden that I gave him, the one to prove why we should not be allowed to know why we won or lost, only that we won or lost. One more reason for an affirmative ballot. I await my opponent and the voters, and I ask that everyone post an RFD. You should be proud of who you voted for and why, and you have more than enough reason to let me and my opponent know about it.