Implement an option to require voters to spend a min amount of time reading a debate before voting

I shall now counter my opponent's rebuttals.Contention 1 of mine that pro attempted to rebut: Discrimination against super-speed readers."This argument is placing rare cases above the vast majority of people."No. It is saying that your system completely and utterly neglects that such people exist and should thus be entitled to vote in less time than an average person."Should a society remove speed limits on roads because some drivers would be able to drive at higher speeds and not have accidents? I mean, we're just slowing them down -- sarcasm."If you were so kind as to read my second contention you would realise the 'crashes' (vote bombs) occur regardless of this being in place. So unlike a speed limit, this is a far more inefficient system."This argument assumes that the time required to read = the time required to vote properly. It is completely neglecting the fact that it takes time to consider both sides of the argument before voting (fairly)."No is doesn't. Instead it realises that if someone has read what most people read in five minutes, in one minute, they would already have had been forced to sit through four minutes of extra consideration before voting and thus would already have reached their conclusion far before the voting time was set. It recognises the unfairness and injustice of such a system.Contention 2 of mine that pro attempted to rebut: The system doesn't serve its purpose."Yes, I agree"My opponent completely concedes and accepts the contention as valid."There are obvious ways to get around this measure"That is exactly why it is pointless to implement."That doesn't mean people will, nor that it will be ineffective."Actually, if a security system in place to prevent wrongdoers can be worked around, it is ineffective."It is completely impractical to think people would vote bomb more if it took more time."It is not impractical to think that people who vote irrationally and don't even care about quality of debating will still vote irrationally and not care about debating regardless of the time they have to wait before voting. Their disregard for legitimate debating and voting is a part of their personality and intellect, it will persist regardless of the external influence of the voting mechanism.Contention 3 of mine that pro attempted to rebut: It should either apply to all debates or none."I don't see how you think it's unfair to let people have a choice. If people don't want voters to vote bomb mindlessly (which you would have to say is currently happening) then they should have this option when they start a debate. Also, one doesn't have to accept a debate if said debate doesn't have their preferred option for this resolution."If you want to eradicate vote bombing from a site with a method that you assume will stop it then to allow some debates to be open to vote bombers by choice it creates an unfair disadvantage and incentive for pro-vote-bombing to accept the debate as if they were an army whose friends all vote bomb in their favour. Either make it fully effective or don't do it at all, half-way implementation is a joke where the debates that don't have the system will be vote bombed (although if you read my second contention you'll realise why this would occur regardless)Contention 4 of mine that pro attempted to rebut: Different length debates would require different minimum times."Possible alternatives: The time required to vote is directly proportional to the word count of the debate, and set for very fast readers (all it takes to deter vote bombs and bad votes is a little bit of waiting time)The issue with this is that you are not setting a minimum time for voting but rather a maximum rate. The time required to vote is set by the creator of the debateThis is not a minimum time, this is the option to have it. We are not debating whether to allow a debater to set their own opinion of a minimum time (which could be 100 hours) but instead we are discussing a set minimum time for debates. The time required to vote is something very short, but universal (like 30 seconds). Even this amount of time would probably fix the problem just as much as 5 minutes would."If 30 seconds is just as efficient as five minutes at solving the issue why isn't 0 seconds also as efficient? This unjustified random number shooting is irrelevant and false.