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

Alright final round. First off I'd like to start out for apologizing for my straw-man, I understand what you were saying now. With that out of the way I will be attacking your case and then upholding mine. First let us once again apply your plan to its fullest potential which would be 12 random questions about a debate. This is still one step more than normal voters have to do now and will deter legitimate voters from voting. Right now legitimate voters read the debate and actually vote on it. Illegitimate voters simply vote on their bias or their friend. Your system hurts legitimate voters while doing nothing to stop illegitimate voters. Voters voting for their friends are still going to do so after you plan is passed. Good voters are simply going to be annoyed that they have to answer 12 questions. My opponent then tells me this makes it harder for people with multiple accounts to vote but this is not true. Let me put this into perspective. A person with 5 accounts is going to have to read the debate once and fill out 5 identical quizzes in order to vote. Each legitimate voter will have to read the debate once a piece and then fill out the quiz 5 times. Thus when it comes down to it an illegitimate 5 votes requires 1 reading 5 quizzes where as a legitimate 5 votes requires 5 readings and 5 quizzes; more work. This system makes it mildly harder for legitimate voters to vote and easier for illegitimate voters to. Furthermore if it is the debater himself/herself making the multiple accounts then he/she doesn't even need to worry about reading it because he/she already did while debating it. In summary, my opponents plan does not stop illegitimate voting in any way, it simply puts a damper on all of us by making us take a random quiz at the end of every debate we choose to judge. So now for some defense on my own case. My opponent begins by stating that while my plan may very well give members incentives to get 20 wins it may at the same time give them incentive to perpetuate the bad voting system in order to get 20 wins. However what you as voters need to keep in mind here is the fact that my opponents plan simply throws up a wall of anywhere between 1-12 questions in order to throw off bad voters. My plan on the other hand throws up a wall of 20 debates, which is mildly more time consuming at the very least and offers the opportunity for such people to lose interest while getting their 20 debates if they are simply illegitimate voters. After all what incentive does in illegitimate voter have in getting into the "debate 20 group". They can win just as well out of it. My opponents second attack on me was as follows: "My opponent states that it doesn't disallow the debaters in the group to vote on debates outside of the group. Whether or not my opponent's plan was implemented, you'd have this ability with any group." and yes, while this is very true I was simply pointing out that my plan could be implemented as a user desired. Much like my opponents plan. Thus in this aspect our plans are equal. My opponent then brings up PreacherFred once again and attempts to tell me that he will not be able to participate in such a system. However I would like to cross apply my first point, being incentives, to this. In my last speech I said that PreacherFred seems very happy where he is and doesn't mind the bad voters. My opponent never contradicted this but even if he wasn't happy I would like to point out that PreacherFred would thereby have incentive to win 20 debates and join the "debate 20 group". Thus this leads me to my 3 points on my case that my opponent ruthlessly attacked. 1). My opponent suggests that the administrators of this website can use their own search engines but this is faulty as he has not proven that the administrators have IP search engines in any way. Furthermore even if he wanted to prove such a point my system takes strain off of the web administrators as they no longer have to sift through IP addresses. He then states that spite could be used just as well in such a situation however this is not true. As I would obviously be the one implementing such a system and I am an un-spiteful person by nature. Thus the system would very little to no spite inherent in it. Point of offense: The web masters are just as capable of spite as anyone on this site. They can spitefully kick someone off under the pretext that they were using multiple accounts. Finally my opponent says having a majority voting system for who could be allowed in is just as open to spite. But seeing as I have now dictated myself the one in charge of the IP investigations in response to my opponents questions, "Secondly, who is going to be in charge of IP address investigations?" We can see that this is a moot point, as it has already been done by me. Therefor my system makes strives to prevent users with multiple accounts where as my opponents system does no such thing. 2). My opponent says that illegitimate voters would have an easier time getting into the system than legitimate voters would but this is where I would like to cross apply my point from earlier. What do illegitimate voters have to gain from my system? Obviously legitimate debaters/voters can join the group in order to have a more educated voting pool but illegitimate voters have nothing to gain. In fact, the voters that are in the debate 20 groups are less likely to vote favorably for an illegitimate debater than those outside of the group. Thus an illegitimate debater is better off outside of the group. Even if this point didn't exist at all we can still see that my case makes a greater strive to deter illegitimate voters than my opponents case does. 12 questions vs. 20 debates. My case provides illegitimate voters much more hardship than his case. 3). Finally the fact that my plan comes first is not irrelevant as my opponent says, it is simply an added to benefit to why my plan is better. Considering this is the last round I would like to urge all voters to vote on who they think did the better debating with points in the round as opposed to bias. I would also urge everyone who votes to take a couple moments to give constructive criticism. Thanks for the debate logical, as always it was amazing.