Character max

========== Not Enough Space ========== Through the use of semantics, my opponent has attempted to allude the audience to the idea that I have a problem 'absurd limit currently allotted' rather then limits in themselves. This was not the point of this argument, however. The point of this argument was to address the fact that the instigator, may happily use their 8000 characters to their liking with as many big and bold statements as they like. Then we have the opponents who, despite their futile attempts to hit each and every argument with enough explanatory enough detail, they epically fail to get to each argument as intended, which is no fault of their own, seeing as they may have utilized all the characters allotted simply in arguing there opponents claims. Not to mention the fact that there would not nearly be enough room from all the refutation, to make their own arguments on the situation at hand. ========== Limits creativity ========== My opponent seems to think that is argument was brought up merely for the fact of complaining about not being able to be over-explanitive in making simple points. However, that is simply not the case. The purpose of this argument is to show that the character limit offers a strict line to what we can and can't do. 'Why is this a bad thing?', you may ask. For example: Your in a court hearing, and the judge tells to that you only get 10 minutes to relate your side of the story. Not only is the judge missing a great amount of detail from the story, but he is only hearing the facts, instead of the more important "whys". Now say when we are making a case against an opponent, and we have used every last character we have left, yet we still have many more arguments to make on the subject, we have just substantially lost the ability and freedom to make and create many more points. This limits creativity, because not only does it detract from the debating experience, but it also refrains us from getting the whole case scenario across. ========== No Good Reason ========== My opponent has offered three reasons that in his opinion are good ones. 1. Loss of readers. I personally would not agree with this one. In fact I would say it would be quite the opposite. I love and enjoy reading a good heated debate in which both debaters use their max characters. I become dis-appointed when a debater has to stop a round due to the fact that they have run out of alleged characters. 2. Loss of genuine votes I don't see how this would come into play at all for any reason in reading a longer debate. How could making longer refutations possibly effect the readers vote on a debate? If anything, having an unlimited character max, would allow the readers and voters to see even more enlightenment on the debate, from both debaters, and open them up for a more proper judgement on the rounds. 3. Unfair tactic and unnecessarily long debates! 'Unfair tactic'? In what way, shape, or form, is having a longer character max unduly effective in the helping of one persons tactics over his/her opponents? Aside from the 'unfair tactics' part being totally un-backed and irrelevant, long debates are better! If a voter is simply too lazy to read the debate, then they are best not voting. However there are many others like me, who enjoy reading long debates, as it proves interesting and can be a time consuming pass time. Increasing the number of characters in a argument, though essentially does nothing except for provide more room for some one to fill to the brim, and leave the opponent with not enough room to argue off of. I strongly affirm that their should be an infinite character max for all these reasons provided. Thank you -Philosophical