Debate.org should add higher post character options

First, I'd like to point out all the points that my opponent has dropped completely. 2. More points 3. Less clarification (All my opponent stated was that you don't need very much time to explain things. I will get to that in a moment) He also dropped education, which is a major point in this round. Because I set the rules to "Policy" in the first round, any dropped points flow to the opponent of the person who dropped them, and they may not be addressed by the person who dropped them. If Con addresses these points, I would ask that you mark him down in your vote. Moving on to his points: Con essentially only brought up two points and combatted competition. I would ask that he would outline his points a little better so I do not need to quote all of his sentences, but for now that's what I must do. My opponent wishes to say that there is not enough space to debate, yet if a successful debate were to occur, then it would be short, simplistic, and to the point. Length does not imply something being better. My opponent is referring to a debate where not many points are brought up and not much explanation is needed. 1. There are some issues where you could bring up hundreds of arguments. The problem is that there is obviously not enough space to create and explain them all. 2. Under each argument there may be several responses, such as what I am doing right now. Many times I have three or more responses to each point. Sometimes you have several responses to each response. 8,000 characters isn't enough to accomodate all these responses and their explanations. 3. Some points are hard to understand and need adequate explanation. Points that consist of a series of links, for example, are large and usurp many characters. Although when possible simple explanations may be good, it is not always possible. That is why we need an option for more characters. "Running away from a topic while being a part of a debate will show inadequacy. " Yes, it does show inadequacy. But that just shows that if the competitor wants to win, he/she will not stray from the topic in an explanation. I have never personally seen a debate where they're supposed to be discussing nuclear weapons and they start talking about the orphans in Russia. It is hard to get led off in such a tangent. "Is it a limited amount of characters? Quite. " My opponent just conceded that it is limited. But if we had many characters to go upon, then would debate truly be occurring? Yes. Watch a speed debate, then watch a policy debate. In speed debate, they're speaking so many points and so much evidence. Yet they don't stray from the topic. In policy debate, the speaking time might seem okay at first, but then you realize how much more you could be saying. Speed debate is a debate, even though many words are spoken. This argument does not at all stand. “Who knows, a lengthier posting might even show someone that something is too long and they will not debate it. Many have done it before. Why do you think the undermark "TL;DR" has become so popular? Many people are simply not willing to read lengthy discussions, and when a debate is supposed to attract people, and length let people go away, then how can debate be accomplished? ” (1) In debate. org, generally people are more willing to read. They know they might have to read an 8k character post and respond to everything. (2) It’s not like it’s mandatory to have such a large character limit. It’s the choice of the instigator. If the instigator wants to take the risk of having to wait longer since no one wants to debate with that character limit, then let it be so. It’s just increasing flexibility. (3) I have never seen TL;DR used on debate. org. “Referencing from before, length does not mean more competition or better qualification. ” Again, clarification. If you don’t understand a point, how can you adequately combat it? You can’t. It’s up to the instigator. Therefore greater clarification means more words in competition and less having to say “what I meant by that is…” “ then people will start to go off on a tangent rather than actually debate a single subject. ” People tend to actually write less than they need on debate. org. They don’t start going off on different topics. How often do you see someone actually use the 8,000 character limit? If they don’t need to, they won’t. They’re not trying to fill up the space with as many characters as possible to look smart. If need be, the amount of text might be the same as a regular 8,000 character debate. “I guess what I am really trying to say is that ultimately, lengthier characters will be distracting from the original point of a debate. It is not up to you to clarify yourself. It is up to the listeners to do so. ” I beg to differ. In debate, you don’t want your voter (or judge) to be making their own conclusions. You have to make the conclusions for them. The reason is that the less you explain your point and massage it in a voter’s brain, the more personal bias comes in. If you don’t adequately explain and use your point, the voters will insert bias and quite possibly choose the opponent for best argument. “The listeners take in the information you provide, and always use it to influence the voting, no matter what. Length implies something more annoying than anything. ” Voters aren’t forced to vote on a debate that long. The instigator chooses to take the risk of less votes (which isn’t much of a risk frankly) and the contender agrees with this. It’s a matter of choice. All in all, the most important thing my opponent has forgotten is the round extenders. You can create up to 5 rounds. That is 40,000 characters for each person. That is over 17 pages single spaced on a word document What did Con use Gothic Bold pt. 20! ? With the font size on debate. org, it only takes 7 pages, and that’s with paragraph form. “If it takes longer than that to prove a point, then either you don't understand the point you are trying to prove, or you are disregarding the rules of the debate and trying to take off more than you can chew. ” I have heard this term “The rules of debate” from my opponent several times. I have no idea what he is trying to prove or why he’s mentioning the “rules of debate”. All in all, my opponent has only combated one of my points and completely dropped others. He brought up basically two points. I would ask that Con would provide a better outline for his flow of ideas so that it is easier to follow. Because Con dropped 2. More points 3. Less clarification (sort of) And most importantly education, I would ask that you, as a voter, would vote for Pro simply on the basis of these dropped points. Con may not bring them up again because of the “policy” rules. Education is the most important purpose of debate. org. Since my opponent conceded this point, that means he agrees that adding higher character limits make for more education. Con’s points about “getting off topic” are invalid. I have yet to see a debate where people are discussing something completely different from the debate topic. If anything, they will adhere to the least characters possible, which sometimes has to be more than 8,000. As you’ve noticed, I quote my opponent’s sentences in italics to provide an easier debate to follow. That means a lot of characters are spent on what my opponent has written. Many others have this same habit, and a higher character limit would benefit them and everyone.