Character max

============== Introduction ============== However brief our mortal lives truly are in the ever-growing expanse of an aging universe, I find it fair to wonder whether or not Debate.org ought to have a character maximum. Just think about all those debaters who, on the verge of explicating one of life's biggest questions, came to the edge of one of the most tenebrous precipices known to Debate.org – the character limit. Those unfortunate enough to have come to the edge of this infamous precipice may, in a fit of rage, wish that never such a thing as character limits existed at all! It is all too common for anger to lead into error. And I hope anger has not tainted my opponent's reason or malice closed his mind – for these tools are necessary (particularly necessary for what he endeavors to affirm). My sesquipedal tendencies aside, and without further ado, I will now unmask the pretensions that in my opponent's first round masquerades as arguments. ============== Not Enough Space ============== On first appearances, this point seems perfectly reasonable. In fact, I think any veteran user of this site would resonate with this sentiment. However, does my opponent's conclusion really follow from his premise? In essence, is his point really just one big Non Sequitur? I think that it is. Clearly my opponent does not have a problem with limits in general, but rather the absurd limit currently allotted. Could this not be fixed by a significant increase in the max characters allotted? Or even a variable increase, in which all rounds sequentially increase their allotted character limit? ============== Limits Creativity ============== This is another example of poor reasoning. All my opponent's contentions can be resolved by merely increasing the limit. More importantly however, I think my opponent's point is wholly incorrect! There is a certain art to being succinct. In fact, having to condense large points into a few sentences actually fosters creativity! Though it may be hard to see through the paroxysms of frustration that come when one cannot adequately respond due to character restrictions, one needs to consider whether or not their points were pithily delivered. You'll find that the most quoted people are those who say a lot in few words. If there were no character limit it would allow those of a lesser intellectual caliber to camouflage their intellectual poverty with circumlocution and grandiloquent nothings – meaning lost in the obscurity of jargon. A point that is forcefully condensed however, will reveal the true power of its point. As the late Robert Southey wisely said, "It is with words as with sunbeams, the more they are condensed, the deeper they burn." ============== No Good Reason ============== I'm actually rather surprised that the copious amount of readily available "good" reasons alludes my opponent! Certainty the fact that those debates that exceed well beyond the current 8000 character limit for multiple rounds will garner few, if any, readers, and subsequently few genuine votes, constitutes a "good" reason. Moreover, the absence of a character limit could cause certain debaters to employ an unfair tactic of overwhelming their opponent with text. Debates could virtually exceed the length of a novel! So far as I can tell, I have come up with at least 3 good reasons: 1. Loss of readers 2. Loss of genuine votes 3. Unfair tactic and unnecessarily long debates! Not only that, but with the advent of video embedding, debates could not only include hundreds of thousands of words, but be accompanied with dozens of videos! I hope at this point it is clear that eliminating a character limit would actually cause more harm than good. Instead, I would recommend having more options regarding the amount of characters alotted. Thank you, InquireTruth