Number of votes in debates should be visible only to the debaters.

First, my opponent concedes to not being able to provide evidence for his speculation concerning the mindset of the voters. Ladies and gentleman, this is crucial and is enough for you to tip your vote in my favor. In order to support his plan, there must be a clear and observable reason; in this case, his plan needs evidence before consideration. However, I will pacify my opponent in attempt to remove any shred of doubt from your minds. I agree that the possibility exist, but are laws enacted based on "ifs" and "maybes?" Of course not. Laws are enacted to reduce problems which are observable. If a government isn't (and in relation to my opponent's case, BY ANY MEANS) even certain that a problem exist, it has got no reason to create means that will reduce or extract the problem (as wasting the societies time and money is to be avoided at all cost). In this case, my opponent is suggesting that debate.org utilize its time and resources based on his hunch. The resolution makes no mention of the winners being invisible. Because of that (and because of no clarification in round 1), I am justified to make such a conclusion. As for assuming that voters express their bias consciously, I do no such thing. As I've said earlier, I will not claim that my opponent's theory is impossible, but at the same time, I will not support it if my opponent has no evidence in favor of it. My opponent then makes the proposition that each vote come with a mandatory comment, but he is too late in doing this as this should have been covered when defining the topic in round 1. Thus, I am obligated to dismiss this edit. Besides, through editing his plan, he is only acknowledging weakness in his original plan. However, I will pacify my opponent by pointing out the flaw in his reasoning here. A mandatory comment system (the kind my opponent list) would not coerce voters to explain why they voted as it only coerces voters to post. Voters can get around having to read the debate by talking about pointless minutia in their comments. Furthermore (and even assuming the system did coerce voters to post their actual reason), this system compromises my opponent's ENTIRE case. If all voters are required to explain why they voted, figuring out how many votes each participant (in the debate) received will be rather simple. Thus, my opponent's plan would defeat its very purpose. My opponent states that he finds it highly unlikely that a band of supporters will form to report suspicious behavior, but I tell you that this is very much likely. The debate.org administrators actually rely on there being a band of reporters who report suspicious behavior, hence the reason they've installed the "report abuse" option. Second, having a band of supporters DOES inherently make it more likely for action to be taken. As one may (or may not) have noticed, there are no forum moderators. This is due to the fact that the staff doesn't have the time to moderate. In all honesty, Debate.org's highest priority is its users. This is why they are putting so much effort into creating a 3rd version of this website. With the 1000s of users here, there being a high rate of pseudo reports is more than likely and investigating every single one of these reports would be very tedious and time consuming. The easiest solution to this is having a weighted voting system. In this system, the administrators respond to reports made by a certain amount of users. This system is actually used on most online forums of this size and helps in combating an absurd work load. So basically, if enough of debate.org's users think there is a problem, debate.org is going to do everything within its power to fix that problem. Third, the mandated explanations are not a working solution (as I've explained) and may even encourage users to spam at a higher rate than they do now. As for the last point, my point was that it being invisible to the users could bring about a plethora of unnecessary abuse reports. By no means was I suggesting that the administrators would not be able to see the votes being made. Closing Statements: The main reason you should vote for my case is due to the fact that my opponent's plan does not have enough evidence to even support the notion that the problem it prevents actually exist. However, as I've insinuated, there are numerous other problems with this plan such as how it can encourage spam, dishonesty, as well as how it can slow down necessary site updates due to the number of investigations the administrators would be obligated to check up on. Oh, and lets not forget how mandatory comments would compromise the plan altogether. In short, it's more trouble than it is worth. Thus, I strongly urge you vote against my opponent's case. I had fun and thank my opponent for the debate. I also thank all those who took the time out of their day to read. Peace out!