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

Rebuttals1. "There exist people capable of reading 1000 words per minute (wpm). They shouldn't be forced to have to wait to vote simply because the norm can't do what they can." This is an invalid argument, in more ways than one. This argument is placing rare cases above the vast majority of people. 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. 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). 2. "One can merely open a debate, read it and be literally too stupid to understand it and vote bomb. Another issue is that they can open it, switch programs/tabs and just listen to some nice music laughing at the flaw of the system, then return to the tab when the time is up and vote bomb anyway."This argument says nothing about the resolution. Any problem mentioned above would be more prevalent with the current system. Yes, I agree, there are obvious ways to get around this measure, but that doesn't mean people will, nor that it will be ineffective. It is completely impractical to think people would vote bomb more if it took more time. 3. "It would be unfair to members of the site to make this non-compulsory. What I mean is that you can't say that for some debates this should apply and for others we'll let people vote bomb mindlessly for the fun of it. This would create an unfair gap in validity of votes (if it is effective)." 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.4. "If you set the minimum times as five minutes for a one round debate with 1000 character limit you're really being quite silly. Some debates are really long, some are not. You can't set one universal time for all without making it unfair."Here my opponent assumes that it would be a 'universal time,' without a reason for this assumption. 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 time required to vote is set by the creator of the debate 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. SummaryThere should be a minimum amount of time required to be spent on the debate to be able to vote to preserve the validity of voting. There is no case in which someone would be able to vote legitimately in 30 seconds on a legitimate debate, so why have the option? Why should debate.org place illegitimate debates i.e. debates in which someone can vote accurately in 30 seconds ( basically joke debates or debates where someone forfeits) over debates which require time to be invested and are meaningful and thought-provoking?