Debate.org should add higher post character options

Yet I did not drop any points. I merely referenced them for future speaking. Also, I specifically do not care what you set the rules to. The rules I follow are the site rules. If you disagree with them and wish to make a pure "policy" debate, then why not start your own debating site? If not, then notice that I do not have to abide by the rules that you set out. Would it be good if I did? Possibly. But at the same time, when you enter a debate, you must also think that your opponent will not follow through with every thing you say. If we were to merely follow through with every rule you said, then there would be no point to the debate, because I would have to agree with you in order to move on, and then it becomes pointless. "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. " Misquotations will get you nowhere. If you include the previous collective statements in argument then you will see that this sentence is not meant to stand upon its own. In arguing a specific theory, fact, or way very little explanation is needed within the definition of the basis of your argument. Plus, not once did I say there is not enough space to debate. I even said that there is over 17 pages of a Word Document to debate. An example of how a lengthier discussion can fit into a small 3 round debate form is a debate I had with someone else 2 years ago: . http://www.debate.org... Notice how I had five contentions and my opponent had four. The subject being, "A corrupt government is better than no government. " We both had space to argue and to respond to those arguments. . http://www.debate.org... Here we have another debate where I had three contentions beginning and that is what I argued the whole way through. I will address my opponent's concerns: "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. " And that is why debate exists. The best arguments must be chosen for the competition. Hundreds of arguments exist for everything. Are you saying we must argue all of them in order for this to be a proper debate? Unlikely, seeing as though many do not argue hundreds of points at all. Look at Socrates; he created a whole method of arguing not based upon talking points, but reverting what your opponent said into a contradiction of himself. Socrates won most of his "debates". Again, length does not quantify something being better. "Under each argument there may be several responses . .. 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. " Sometimes it isn't, which is why you try to limit yourself in what you say. In the debating environment, people have to learn to argue a point within limits. In other words, infinite argument can't occur. Debate so far has grown on this site, with many people debating all the time considering three years ago it wasn't this busy. If people didn't have enough space to debate, don't you think less people would've come to this site? "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. " Then find a lesser amount of links to argue a point. Many debates have adequate explanation within them. Many times people have argued evolution and science and philosophy, all of which have many arguments, counter-arguments, and much explanation, yet nobody else is desperately complaining for change. "Although when possible simple explanations may be good, it is not always possible. That is why we need an option for more characters. " As said before, many difficult debates have been argued under the limit. "My opponent just conceded that it is limited. " Yes, I have. And I have given my reasons for it being limited. I am not arguing that it is purely not limited (although in many cases it truly isn't). I am mainly arguing that the limit is there and exists for a reason. "Yes. Watch a speed debate, then watch a policy debate. " The major difference between here and there is that here it is written. If someone reads 500 words per minute, then they will read faster than someone whom does not read as fast. 14,000 character debates with 5 rounds will literally go into 30 pages of microsoft word document. Are you writing for a debate or writing a college exam paper? Debate is meant to be shorter and more competitive. "If you don't understand a point, how can you adequately combat it? You can't. " I would like to see what debates you have for proof that this has occurred on debate. org? "People tend to actually write less than they need on debate. org. " And here my opponent shows the reason why I am arguing my point. We do not need more characters because people write less than they need on debate. org. "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. " I used Times New Roman, pt. 12 font. The size on debate. org is the same as a Mircrosoft word document. Because essentially what you are trying to do is compare the sizes of paragraphs and paper on each document. When in reality it has to do with character size. I ask the people of debate. org to go into a word document, type out 8,000 characters, then times that by 5 and see what you get. Times that by 2 and that is how much debating me and my opponent have together to argue. "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". " Competition, Swiftness, and Understanding. I thought education would be self-evident as seeing as though learning to debate in a smaller environment would do well. It is a great way to obtain wisdom. "As you've noticed, I quote my opponent's sentences in italics to provide an easier debate to follow. " This is a farce. My opponent has merely done this to show that clarification needs to exist and he can clarify things now. Obviously, my opponent failed to realize that he just argued his points and "clarified" them all under the 8,000 character limit, while also typing two paragraph spaces in between some of his lines. He has purposely wasted space in order to make his argument seem stronger. "Many others have this same habit, and a higher character limit would benefit them and everyone. " Or, you can learn how to read and respond with your own ingenuity. What my opponent calls on his side "clarification", I call "misinterpretation".