I support the idea of forcing people to actually argue their view, but I see a lot of problems with the current idea. 1) The decision of the closing admin is always going to be questioned. 2) Having only arguments doesn't show how many people actually endorse these views. 3) Debates on schools and roads will probably have an equal amount of delete and keep arguments of which the validness is impossible to establish as both "sides" think the other side is wrong and end up in endless counter aguments.
And if we were to force actual arguments we should also find a way to make people actually read an article and vote based on its merit and not a view on the general category of articles.
--Mgm