Debaters should not be given the option of mandating a 5-12 question MC quiz for their debates here.

My opponent's examination of my first paragraph is the straw man fallacy at work. Let's look at the terms I used to describe the quizzes in round 1: "Each debater would be allowed to create such quizzes for each round, but would only be allowed to ask a maximum of 12 questions for the entire debate." Pay special attention to the last four words. 120 questions is impossible as I clearly suggest that a maximum of 12 can be utilized for the entire debate. My opponent then commits the fallacy of non sequitur by concluding that my plan would make it difficult for every voter. My plan makes it difficult for the voters who don't read/comprehend the entire debate. I cited people who rely on their friends because (under the current system) these "friends" don't have to read anything in the debate to vote. As for multiple accounts, I've already acknowledged that it's still possible. My point is that it's harder to do (especially for the people who didn't debate) since it's not merely a matter of clicking on the voting button. Fortunately, administrators can still act accordingly. My opponent suggests that this (concerning the administrators) point actually supports his, but I'll explain to you why it doesn't later on in this rebuttal. Now, let us proceed by further dismantling my opponent's case. My opponent responds to my first attack on his plan by listing 2 benefits that the group would bring: Re First Benefit: My opponent claims it functions as an incentive. This is possible, but it may very well encourage members to rig more votes. After all, winning/tying 20 debates (especially if you don't really have that much time on your hands) is no small feat here. Some individuals don't have as much patience as others and are willing to resort to underhanded methods to attain what they desire. In this case, asking friends to vote on their debates and usage of multiple accounts may very well increase a few levels for those attempting to get into this "20 Debate Group." Re Second Benefit: My opponent states that it doesn't disallow the debaters in the group to vote on debates outside of the group. Whether or not my opponent's plan was implemented, you'd have this ability with any group. As for PreacherFred, my point was that people who don't have the time to win 20 debates in the time period which my opponent list will definitely not benefit from this plan any time soon. Although in response to what my opponent said concerning PreacherFred, just reread what my opponent said at the end of round 1. If my opponent's plan does what it says, then being able to participate in this educated community would be what PreacherFred was missing out on. As for my plan, the motivation is the increase of discussion that concerns his debates. After all, if people are coerced to read/comprehend the debates, they may very well start having more discussions over them. Besides, in my opponent's plan, voters still aren't obligated to read the debates. Onto the three points: Re Point 1: First, I'll address the bit about the debate.org administrators. My opponent suggests that the administrators will have to check over 3000 to see if they have the same IP addresses. He does this to make it seem as if dealing with problems will take quite a long time due to the workload of the administrators. Firstly, there are around 3450 members on this website (this can be checked upon through going to this page: http://www.debate.org... and counting the number of members accordingly), but if you'll notice, a large percentage of these users have inactive accounts (as in they haven't logged in for weeks or months). Checking to see who has the same IP address is rather simple as it merely requires that the administrators use their own IP address search engine to find out how many times the same IP address pops up. This can be done in seconds/minutes. Secondly, the administrators are more than capable when it comes to dealing with their workload, as there's the fact that they are able to respond to relevant suggestions/reports promptly (they even provide emails to respond to users on both matters). More evidence: http://www.debate.org... During this debate, I had sent a message asking if admin could increase the character limit for my debate, and an administrator responded both through email and the comments page rather quickly. My opponent then suggests that everyone in the "Debate 20 group" could be mandated via messenger programs, but this doesn't change the problem which I brought up. Firstly, this works outside of debate.org, thus the administrators have no say on this matter. Secondly, who is going to be in charge of IP address investigations? Honestly, without an unbiased party such as the debate.org administrators, kicking someone out on the basis that they "supposedly" have multiple accounts can be used when it comes to vendettas. Since the messenger programs work outside of debate.org, members of this group don't even have to actually check potential members IP address; they can claim that they had a messenger meeting without having actually had one. If they want to let someone who has multiple accounts into the group, it's no problem. If they don't like a particular user and want to keep him/her out of the group, it's again no problem. If a user decides to report this unfairness to the administrators, the administrators won't be able to do anything about it due to investigation being user dominated. As for creating a majority vote program, this system would fail for two reasons: 1: It would require investigation by all members of this group. In other words, it is an inconvenience and is ideally unlikely that all or even most of the members (assuming my opponent's presumption that that this group would gain a plethora of members is true) would participate. 2: It doesn't eliminate spite at all. Users already vote on these topics out of spite and bias. What would make this poll any different? Re Point 2: I've added reasons for why getting in with false accounts is simple in point one. Still, I shall address this. Debating with a pseudo-account twenty times won't necessarily require as much time as it would to get into the group by normal means. With pseudo accounts, the debater can make all of his/her debates extremely prompt. Re Point 3: Irrelevant. As long as a high percentage of members don't have access to my opponent's program when it is initiated, my plan would still be superior to his in this regard as it would be accessible to every member when it was initiated. Furthermore, I also said that installing a quiz program to this website would be quick and inexpensive. My opponent has provided no objection to this. If he does so in round 3, you're obligated to dismiss it since I have had no chance to respond on that matter. Just because I've stated that I don't urge immediacy, it doesn't mean that my opponent's plan would come before mine. It just means that I don't find the matter of time important. In the next round, if my opponent attempts to point out any flaw in my plan which he hasn't already brought up, you're obligated to dismiss such an observation. The same goes for advocating any other benefits to his plan. If you don't know the reason for this, I'll be happy to tell you in the comments section. Closing Statements: Reasons to vote for my case: My plan is instantly accessible to all members of debate.org, it is not governed by biased parties, it greatly reduces the kind of voters who have no idea what they are voting about, and you can always call on the friendly debate.org administrators whenever you run into trouble. My opponent's plan provides you with none of these benefits and may very well prove detrimental to debate.org. Thus, I urge you vote for my case. Thank you.