we should not have to have three debates before voting for a debate.

In this round, my opponent significantly upgrades from round two and gives me a chance to refute effectively. Thank you. Since this is the last round, arguments presented by me should be ignored by the voters (just in case I do.)--Rebuttal 1: Argument 1--So, in my opponent's first argument, he states that three debates tend to have negative consequences, and one would make it more moderate. He starts of by saying he agrees that unfair voting could be a big problem. However, he states why three? Why not one? We need three debates because it proves your willingness to the site. As I pointed out, 11,000 debaters have 1 debate under their belts, and most haven't been on for a while. Therefore, they are not worthy of voting on debates some people (like me) spend 2 hours per round on if they come on once a month. So it does not kill off people who want to use this site for real (most of the time.) He also states that people could just type up three debates and vote. First off, it would be a ton easier to just type up one debate and vote, correct? Secondly, we have Airmax banning the guys who do that. So not only would it make more trash debates if you only needed one to vote, but also Airmax would have a lot more work to do...Then you state the "noobs" are not well educated and would like to vote on a few debates before actually debating. But isn't it possible to read a debate without voting on it? Also, how can you vote successfully if you have never been in a debate yourself and don't have any clue on the rules, format, what to point out, etc.Then, my opponent states that one debate can help conclude if a dude is gonna troll or actually debate. I have two rebuttals for this.The first one will be that one is a smaller sample size than three, and you can not judge a member by one debate. For example, a member might put out a giant argument in his first debate, and then troll in the next two. The second rebuttal is a weak one about trolling. If we judged Imabench right off of the bat, debate.org would be a dull, lifeless place... The last thing my opponent says is that in the process of wanting to vote, you may lose three debates right off the bat. However, while this is true, it is actually good. One of our best members and debaters on this site, 16kadams, had this to say:"Losing is why I am now winning." So losing a few debates off the bat will be good in your future. You may end up winning 235 debates if you are really obliged to this site.--Rebuttal 2: Argument 2--In his last (rather short) argument, he tries to prove my arguments wrong by saying you can do everything I said with just one debate instead of three. However, he is wrong.To really become attached to debating, you have to do multiple debates, not just one. When you do multiple debates, you get well known and are more likely to spread word of DDO to your friends and/or family. With just one debate, you are more unlikely to do that.In his last section of the debate, he asks you to vote for con, which is me. I think that is a typo :PThanks to my opponent for debating me, and thanks to you for reading and voting. Have a nice day.