Five-Round Debates Are Inferior To Three-Round Debates

I accept my opponent's apology. ---- Contention 1 Redux ---- (1) My opponent attempts to refute my argument -- that five round debates sacrifice far too much readability -- with a multitude of statements. He first writes, "The ones that have the most characters tend to have the most views". To prove his statement, he provides two debates as evidence. The first debate deals with anime/cartoons, which are prominent sources of interest for debate.org users. The second debate deals with the CWO controversy. Their extensive viewings have nothing to do with the fact they were five-round debates; rather, they were debates that interested the debate.org community, and who were only coincidentally five-round debates as well. Using his logic, I can claim three-debates are superior using my date plea to monkeyyxxsun ( http://www.debate.org... ). My opponent continues to concede, "...the only thing that would throw lazy... people off would be more convincing arguments assuming that they wouldn't take their time reading debates they wished to vote for." And that is a reason why five-round debates are inferior. Don't let my opponent fool you into believing five-round don't sacrifice readability. (2) True, the Cleaners have been very successful countering vote bombing, but many still do not ask for their help. Indeed, their very existence proves vote bombing is a problem. And five-round debates, which typically reach a much smaller audience, are more susceptible to vote bombing. Also, I did not source Rezzealaux to prove he preferred three-debates; I sourced him to prove that debates with wide winning-margins are often immune to Josh-iphilus. Again: Because three-round debates reach a wider audience, they are more often more immune to Josh-iphilus. (3) Five-round debates often lose readers in a smear war of circumlocution and a multitude of valueless points. My opponent writes that if a debate becomes confusing, that "the points go to the other side for being clearer on more convincing arguments according to analysis, refutation, and organization." This is not so. Besides the readers (already few in numbers) who will get discouraged from reading more of the debate, a confusing debate will often make it hard to vote. Quite simply, confusing debates are confusing. And more than that, they are five-round debates. ---- Contention 2 Redux ---- (1) I would have thought my opponent would have grown tired of attacking my character. I, anyway, am tired of defending myself. Obviously, ad hominem does not refute a point. No one needs eighty thousand characters to successfully evaluate an issue. It is unnecessary. (2) My opponent attempts to refute my point -- that five round debates waste the time of its debaters for no practical benefit -- by sourcing a one-round debate, saying that the instigator did not have time to respond. No duh. This is debate about three-round debates, not ONE debates. I totally agree with my opponent that five round debates, although bad, are better than one-round debates. But back to my point, three-debates are way-more-than-sufficient in evaluating an issue. I am pretty sure readers of THIS three-round debate have a pretty clear understanding of our points. Five-round debates waste the time of its debaters. (3) My opponent has agreed to his concession that five-round debates have a higher chance of confusing its readers. He has not disputed this. And indeed, he has devised a solution for this problem. He says that former-webmaster Nate (now fired) once believed debaters should follow a strict structural outline. I'd like to ask where he got the idea to qualify "structural outline" with "strict". I don't see the word "strict" or any implication of the word "strict" in former-webmaster Nate's writing anywhere. And furthermore, where did he get the idea that most debaters followed Nate's writings anyway? Five-round debates are so confusing that Dnick94 is desperately finding ways to make them better. That shows the inferiority of five-round debates in it of itself. ---- Contention 3 Redux ---- (1) This is not a debate to ban five-round debates. It is simply an attempt to prove that they are inferior to three-round debates. When my opponent writes, "Waste or no waste, debates are supposed to be fun and they shouldn't be limited to less than 8,000 characters," not only does he concede that five-round debates are wasteful, he creates a straw man argument. Don't let my opponent fool you. Five round debates are idealistically wasteful, because there is little point to them. ---- Conclusion ---- My burden in this debate has been to prove that five-round debates are inferior to three-round debates. I believe I have met my burden. Because I have proven that five-round debates deter voters, read poorly, confuse readers, waste the time of its debaters, and waste server space. I'd like to thank my opponent for this awesome debate, and the audience for taking the time to read it. Thank you.