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

Rebuttal 1. Me: "'This argument is placing rare cases above the vast majority of people.'Him: 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. " My opponent is only focusing on instances in which this system would not be ideal. Unfortunately, there is no solution I can think of to his grievance. However, one must look at the situation in a way such that 'what does the most good for the most people' (utilitarian). By definition, most people are not 'super speed readers'. One must balance the good and the bad in ANY thing that is being considered. My opponent makes a non-sequitur by assuming that because this idea has problems, it isn't for the best.2. Me: "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."Him: 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.I hope you understand that this rebuttal is illogical. We have speed limits, but we still have crashes -- but fewer than if we didn't have speed limits. If we implemented the 'required time to vote' resolution, there would still be vote bombs, albeit fewer of them. This system is not any different than a speed limit. It is annoying to some (fast readers and people who can handle high speeds), but these 'problems' are squashed out by the far greater importance of fewer crashed and better votes overall. 3. Me: "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)."Him: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.Your grievance assumes that the time required to vote would be exactly how long it would take the average reader to read it. I never said that it had to be that. The time required could be intentionally less, even for the fastest speed reader! Vote bombing takes MUCH less time than even the fastest-speed reader who is reading a legitimate debate. Also, maybe the time required to vote isn't even about reading the debate. The person who chooses to have said option may insist that voters spend a minimum amount of time considering the arguments. By definition, my opponent is talking about people who fall outside the norm. Parallelism to my opponents argument concerning discrimination towards speed-readers:We should raise speed limits to the speed limit that the highest echelon of drivers can handle, because not wasting their time is more important than the safety of the vast majority of drivers. 4. Me: ""There are obvious ways to get around this measure"Him:That is exactly why it is pointless to implement." This is a completely invalid conclusion. There are obvious ways to get around the speed limit, so why have one." <--- this is what you are saying. 5. Me: "'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."Him: If you want to eradicate vote bombing from a site with a method that you assume will stop it then to allow some debates 1: 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)"I want to eradicate vote bombing on LEGITAMITE debates. There are many joke debates on this site that do not require the resolution I'm supporting. This is why it should be an option. You are having it both ways here. You are using the fact that this resolution would be helpful against itself (by claiming it only being helpful in half of debates would be harmful) only to turn around later and say it won't be effective.1: who says that this resolution isn't beneficial if it's used on only half of the debates -- not to mention it can always be used if one wants it. 5. "Possible alternatives: Me: 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) Him: The issue with this is that you are not setting a minimum time for voting but rather a maximum rate. How would setting a minimum time NOT be a minimum time? Please explain. Me: The time required to vote is set by the creator of the debate Him: This 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. Once again, how is this not a minimum time? An option to have a minimum time is an option to have a minimum time. You are literally disagreeing with x=xWhy would someone set the minimum time to 100 hours? They could just as easily NOT have a debate. Your rebuttal here makes no sense, sorry. Me: 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." Him: 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. Why do you assume 0 seconds waiting time has the same effect 30 seconds would? This is NOT an unjustified 'random' number. It is a number that shows how a time could be settled on as to make vote bombers have to wait and speed-readers be able to vote as soon as they finish. You are making so many logical fallacies. Conclusion My opponent has made logical fallacies in his reasoning and completely failed to argue in any legitimate way why the resolution is not valid. He provided many cases in which the system could not be ideal, he provided many scenarios in which the system could be implemented poorly, but was completely unable to show that there was NO way that this could be implemented in a beneficial way. Example: Implement a minimum time option of 10 seconds before one can vote on debates over 10,000 words. No vote bomber who is so impatient that he or she will not wait 10 seconds will ever vote bomb. Also, no speed-reader will ever be able to be affected. Thus, this is a system in which minimum read times WOULD be beneficial. If you support speed limits, you support the resolution in at least some form. parallelism :1) Speed limits are in place to protect the safety of drivers = minimum read times are in place to help protect against bad votes2) Car crashes = bad votes3) People who can handle higher speeds without getting into crashes = quick readers4) The annoyance to drivers who can handle higher speeds = the annoyance to quick readers who might have to wait a little bit before votingThank you for your time!