Debate.org should add higher post character options

"This is the only spot my opponent actually even mentioned my points...... Then waiting till the last round when you have the last word and refuting them. Does that make logical sense? Do you view stating my point as rebutting it?" I mentioned both of our points throughout my whole debate. Did I clearly say, "Now here is my next point for you to understand"? No, and that is because I believe people here have the ability to connect the points with what is being said without having to be told what they are. As for logical sense, I do not think you know what you are talking about in that aspect. My not making logical sense implies that I am being illogical. So it is illogical not to follow a format of debate because you said I can't follow it? That is the logical fallacy "argumentum ad potentium". It means you believe that your debate format is unquestionable because you instigated the debate, and now having questioned it myself you have used my questioning as a way to try and prove that I am wrong. That, my friend, does not make logical sense. Also, this isn't the last round. All throughout your post you say this is the "last round" and "in conclusion". There are 4 rounds in this debate. Firstly, I would like to reference a quote of my own in the first round: "if much more space is given, then people will start to go off on a tangent rather than actually debate a single subject." If we look closely, both of us at the beginning of our debate rounds have talked about something else rather than the topic at hand. For having so much to say about it, you have a good enough space to argue policy debate with me and tell me I make "no logical sense". And actually, the first third of his 3rd round is debating me and response to his, "Voters, you must mark him down in the imaginary points box that says, 'You must follow the instigators exact rules'". "I simply quoted a specific sentence for the convenience of the voters." There is a difference between convenience and misquotation. You misquoted because (like I said previous round) you took the sentence by itself and not with all the information before it. Let me show an example: "John Doe said that killing Jews is a good thing". Let us say that I said this. You would be taking it as if I had said, "killing Jews is a good thing." Whereas I was merely showing that someone else said it. The format of the example shows what you are doing. You are taking information and rerouting it to fit your own way of defeating it. In actuality, you have only defeated a portion of the part you misinterpreted. "my opponent did not refute the fact that it is not over 17 pages, it is only 7" Everytime I copy your size writing onto Microsoft Word, it is Arial pt. 8 font. I, and also debate.org, use 12 pt. font with Times New Romans. Of course yours is only 7 pages long. Your text is incredibly small. I ask (like I asked before) that the voters go into MSWord, have 12 pt. TNR font, and type in 8,000 characters times 5, and that is how much arguing space one person has in a typical debate. And if you have lower font, then still type in 8,000 characters times 5. Even though the pages will be shorter, the text will be smaller, and this the amount of characters and length are still parallel to my idea. "1. Maybe my opponent is just good at making his point concise." I have shown you how to do so as well. If I can do it, then the possibility of others doing so as well are easy. "2. This debate round did not consist of several responses. Sometimes each response takes a lot of text." It consisted of several responses. Of course, if my opponent knew what he was talking about, he would've made a number instead of merely saying "several". "Nine contentions is not necessarily that large. It depends on the contentions." I agree, it isn't that large, but it's not small either. That is an average amount of contentions for a proper debate. "Three contentions is barely anything." Three contentions is a decent amount of contentions. How many do you have in this debate? 5? That is two above my what I had in the other debate. "I noticed something very funny about this debate. Look at the vote tab. Sycrone voted for Sycrone on all 7 points. Just keep in mind my opponent is not the most ethical debater" Then why don't you define ethics for me? I was merely following the rules of the site. Back then, we were allowed to vote for ourselves. It was pretty standard for everyone to do, because the more votes a debate got, the more views it usually got and more votes would come in. Which back then, when there was the core group of debaters and many random people going in and out, the traffic wasn't steady. I voted for myself. I would be an idiot not to. Why would I vote for my opponent in a competition where I want to win? Being ethical is not merely being right or wrong. Hitler had ethics, just not the ones you had. My ethics in a debate forum are to win because, guess what our objective here is? To win. Of course, this is merely an ad hominem attack on me. "He is wrong because he voted for himself to win." Give me a break :P "But it still increases education. The more points are brought up, the more the opposition learns about his/her position and can adapt and learn how to refute them. No, you don't have to have that many points. It's preferable to be able to bring up as many as possible, though." Why is it preferable to bring up as many as possible? Where is the proof? You can't make statements without evidence to back you up, especially when speaking about the general population. Learning to debate will little points and little reference could make someone a formidable philosopher. Other than wisdom, why would anyone be searching for specific knowledge in a debate? "My opponent is suggesting that since so many people have come, then it's obviously not a problem." It isn't a problem, and more people have come and debated. I'm not merely saying it. I have been on this site for three years and I remember three years ago. I am saying from personal experience. Just because you lack that personal experience doesn't mean it is a logical fallacy. "I believe debate.org should allow 9k, 10k, 11k, 12k, 13k, and 14k post character amounts." "I'm not arguing that it is NECESSARY to add a higher character limit." So when things get bad for you, just pretend like someone misspoke for you. "I'm sure they would be glad" You don't know this. Just because you would be glad doesn't mean others would also. "but it is not preferential." Again, you don't know this. "A reason that doesn't matter." And yet you debate around the limit. "Obviously the word count is flawed" You are using 8pt. font Arial. I am using 12 pt. font TNR. I am not asking YOU to check. I am asking the VOTERS to check. Obviously you wouldn't own up to the truth if it were true. "Do I sense an insult?" No, but I believe YOU were the one to say I was an unethical debater. If you break down the sentence, I am saying you have ingenuity, but you should learn how to read and respond to the debates with that ingenuity. "But, what's the disadvantage to a higher character limit?" As I have said. To learn to debate in a shorter amount of time with what you have is more competitive and educative than having 14,000 character limits. "There are the advantages of Education and More points" No evidence has been provided for this. Merely stating facts are true without providing the facts themselves is illogical. If we also can quickly notice, my opponent thinks this is the end of the debate. There is still one more round left. I will allow him the three days to gather all the evidence he needs to prove his points correct. Providing facts is key. Merely stating, "this should be so because it would be better" is not an argument.