Debate.org should add higher post character options

"I mentioned both of our points" I had more than two. You're just proving you dropped a few. "Did I clearly say…without having to be told what they are." How does this tie in to what I said? My opponent keeps going off and saying things that don't make sense. "That… does not make logical sense." You're right. You made absolutely no sense. I asked whether it's logical that mentioning a point is rebutting it. It's obviously not logical. You made no attempt to refute it, you just went off on another of your hard to follow tangents. "Also, this isn't the last round…conclusion"." My opponent is clearly confused. I was not saying that it is the last round. I said "It's like saying…then waiting till the last round". Not "My opponent waited till the last round". I say in conclusion because I conclude each of my arguments with a summary. Again, my opponent is confused and has been confusing us all during this debate. "both…not topic at hand." No. Talking about Policy rules and dropped arguments is part of the debate, not off topic. My opponent is even confused on the definition of "off topic". Killing Jews My opponent refused to refute my main point: that all the quoted information is available right above the post. I am merely shortening it for my character limit and the voter's convenience. If I had said "killing Jews is good", it wouldn't have mattered because in Con's post you have the context. "you have only defeated…the part you misinterpreted." I defeated your whole point. Let's look at what I actually said to put this to rest. "My opponent is referring to a debate where not many points are brought up and not much explanation is needed." Con had used an example of explaining certain philosophies. I was saying that you do not need much of an explanation for this. I had three responses to his point which still stand, since Con did not at all refute them. 1. Hundreds of arguments 2. Several responses 3. Hard to understand points Transcendentalism, for example, could be explained as "Any system of philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical and material". Of course, that is rather hard to understand. So you give an example, or use more readable words to get the point across. It takes space. My opponent is saying that you can explain it with less characters, but I argue that it is not preferable. Font argument 1.Size 12 is rather large 2. Let's not look at pages. Let's look at how much space we need to refute. All of my other arguments stand. It is preferable to have more space in some cases. 3. Let's look at a long, four round debate with 12 point TNR as Con wants it and no whitespace. 8 and a half pages per person. Roughly 2.25 pages per post. Where did my opponent get 17 pages? Was he not counting whitespace characters? Debate.org uses whitespace as characters as well. (Plus most debates are 3 to 2 rounds, not 5 or 4). 4. Summary: you have to quote your opponent and use plenty of whitespace. You don't have 8 pgs. to respond to every argument, you have 8 pgs. to respond to every argument 4 times. "If I can do it…others…as well" I should not have used my opponent as an example in the first place. The reason being he usually does not refute my actual responses, but just says something hard to understand and respond to. I always go point by point, but Con does not always. This style of debate is sloppy and hard to follow. "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"." 1.It consisted of ME doing several responses. That is why I am always running out of characters with this restrictive limit. 2.Ad hominem? Secondly, it is purely dumb to call me stupid for saying "several" rather than a specific number. The amount of responses always varies. I can't pin a number on it. "That is an average amount of contentions" Ah, but what about a large debate? Voters, the reason I want a higher character limit is not for EVERY debate, but rather the ones that are long and need more space. Even this round is making me run out of characters. Dishonest voting issue Just in case Con hasn't noticed, you're no longer allowed to vote for yourself. That's for a good reason. If everyone votes for himself, then the ones that don't will always be losing. Note that his opponent did not vote for himself. "It would have been crazy to vote for my opponent" (paraphrased) Then don't vote at all? It's like doing a competitive team policy round and writing yourself the ballot. No competition. My opponent is clearly unethical. "Why is it preferable to bring up as many as possible?" The answer is in my post. Because you learn arguments against your case. As you know, not everyone uses the same arguments against any given case. One opponent might use a certain set of arguments, and another might use a different set. If you go up against an opponent that throws all the arguments at you, then you now know all possible arguments and how to respond to them. It's practice. "Learning to debate with less points could be better" It's the instigator's choice whether he wants a low argument debate or a high argument debate. "It isn't a problem, and more people have come and debated." Remember my opponent's attack on misquoting? Con has been responding to only the quotes this whole time. I showed how his argument was a logical fallacy. He made no attempt to refute my reasoning. I encourage you to read what I wrote and see how he did not at all respond to what I said. "when things get bad…pretend like someone misspoke" Actually, no. That's what I was saying from the beginning. "Should" does not equal "it is necessary". "Just because you would be glad..." 1. There are tens of thousands of members on this site. I'm sure at least a few will want more characters. 2. it doesn't affect anyone unless they use the higher character limit. So there's no disadvantage. Voter, do you want to be able to explain yourself more? Even if you don't really want it, you have to agree that since it doesn't affect you unless you choose it, then it makes no sense to vote against it. Insult What Con said was untrue. What I said about unethical debating is true. Con's argument that he was saying I have "ingenuity" was mostly interpreted as sarcasm. "To learn to debate…character limits." This point barely stands, but I'll still refute it. As I said, it is educational to learn several arguments against your case and how to refute them. It is also educational to know what your opponent means. (Sometimes it is hard to understand Con, for example). Thus, there are two educational aspects of 14,000 characters. Secondly, this 14,000 character limit is not default or mandatory. My opponent is basing all his argument on this misconception. Because you can choose a low character limit and also a high character limit, you get both types of education. Therefore, there is no disadvantage to allowing a higher character limit. "No evidence…illogical." First, my opponent hasn't brought up evidence for his own points. Secondly, I don't need evidence. More points: COMPLETELY logical. It's like saying "I have a bigger bag, so I can fit more groceries in." My opponent is trying to say that I need evidence to prove such. Education follows from more points, since you learn more about your case and how to refute arguments against it. "My opponent thinks this is the end of the debate" Again, Con can't even read my arguments correctly. No wonder it is hard to understand his responses. Refer back to what I said in the beginning. "Providing facts is key." Cross-apply my reply. My opponent is being hypocritical and I don't even need evidence for something purely logical. (Again I had to use a lot of ellipsis to fit this post in 8k characters)