DDO Should Allow Unlimited Characters in Debates

Unlimited Gish Gallop:First of all, Gish Gallops alone are very mean. Not to meantion within unlimited debates, you can take Gish Galloping to a new level. Thus, with so much Gish Galloping, this should lead to warnings to banning. People wouldn't be allowed to do so much Gish Gallops because of the risk involved. Not only so, Gish Gallops are easily to spot and they have a common errors most time, as such a fallacy (Because Gish Gallops are most often lies or half-lies, or straw-mans.) [1], so they can easily be countered with just a few sentences.Conclusion and Clarity:This makes no sense. There is a double limit online, both limit in character and time. In real life there is only a limit to time. Do people go ahead to make one gazillion gish gallops in a live debate just because they can technically talk insanely fast and manage to be able to do those gazillion gish gallops? Of course not. They are wasting time, and time is a crucial factor. Indeed, I agree that you can babble more than usual within an unlimited character debate, but the opponent and the judges can simply skip over it due to its irrelevancy, and you still have to be concise in order to make all your arguments within the limited amount of time. Just because you have unlimited characters does not mean you can type up infinity arguments, because you only have limited amount of time to type up everything.Higher average voting score:"Furthermore, just because people believe these debates to be better doesn't mean that they're objectively better." Actually they are better. The voters can vote better within these unlimited-character debates because the evidence suggests that they understand the debate further than a limited-character debate. With unlimited characters you can truly experiment and learn how to truly word your argument and clarify your true meaning within the debate and reveal your true diction and vocabulary. More realistic:Once more, I stress on the fact that people cannot prat on endlessly on each point. Some people can only contribute so much time to the debate. With unlimited characters, debates will be more similar to real life debates. Similar to real-life debates, you can only type so much in the limited time. Limited character is too much of a challenge, and people cannot express themselves very clearly, explaining why the voting score on unlimited character debates on Edeb8 is higher.My opponent's ridiculous counter-planMy opponent tries talking about an "Exactly 83,215,642 Characters Limit" plan. What is this? This is absolutely ridiculous. It looks very troll but nevertheless I will rebut this in a very serious manner. Or at least, as serious as I can manage. First of all, why exactly that number? Why not one more? Why not one less? There is absolutely no point in having EXACTLY 83 million 215 hundred thousand and 642 characters. This does not follow the pattern of the character limit options--500, 750, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8,000, 9,000, and 10,000. As you can see they are all multiples of 10 as well as 50. That exact character limit my character poses looks ridiculous in comparison to these other numbers and looks out of place. It does not work well.Re-rebuttals with the ridiculous counter-plan1. H.A.V.S.Once again, this character limit looks ridiculous and out of place. It will not work. "Unlimited characters" looks so much neater and nicer than "83,215,642 characters".2. RealisticMy opponent admits that speaking his ridiculous amount is easy. Therefore infering that some people will actually not have a big problem reaching that part or even broadening over the part. What if people want more than that much characters? Then obviously that much amount is not enough. Only unlimited can guarantee that everyone has enough to say.3. L.F. on A.L.My opponent is incorrect. 82,215,642 characters does not recieve the same benefits of my case. I mentioned above in my rebuttals its benefits that unlimited character has that which the massive amount my opponent claims does not have.My side is impossible? I agree, there is no actual "infinite", but the limit isn't "infinite characters", the limit is "unlimited characters". This means that the debate can have as much characters and solid arguments as the debaters can type up. I have shown that without the limit of characters, unlimited characters has many positive benefits. IN CONCLUSIONMy opponent's rebuttals hold no ground and are refuted. His counter-plan is too troll to really work out compared to unlimited characters.There's a reason Larz chose to include the unlimited characters option on his website.VOTE PRO.[1] http://rationalwiki.org...