Character max

=========== Not Enough Space =========== Again my opponent has jumped to the conclusion, that I am against limits in general, which, is entirely un-true, given that he read my last argument. Again, limits vary. When a limit is holding something, or someone back from doing something important, that's where the line should be drawn. And I would very much consider writing an argument important, would you not agree? Now my opponent uses a quite peculiar example to dis-prove me on limits, using a scenario of speed limits. This, my friends, is a perfect example of where limits may very. See, as opposed to debate responses, the only thing the speed limit is holding us back from is keeping our lives. But, back on topic to not having enough space, when we are limited response space in a debate, we cannot flow the rest of what we need to argue in a sufficient enough manner (assuming the opponent as used up the max character limit with arguments, that is.)! ========= Limits Creativity ========= My opponent again assumes that my court-room analogy, is based solely upon semantics, and extra word usage, which is definitely not the case, I can assure you. Again, seeing as the judge as given you only a specific amount of time to relate your side of the story, however, you have to leave out some of the most important facts because you are allotted only a small amount of time! I also think it is wrong to assume a man of obvious guilt, when there side of the trial hasn't been even laid down. Every individual in America has the right to fair and speedy trial, and there are alot of things that factor into murder cases, such as murder, wrongful accusation, protection of another, etc. The same applies to a debate! What if we are not fully allowed to respond to an accusation or question from the opponent, because we were too busy using our characters on answering the rest of our blasted opponents case. Is simply ludicrous that such a thing exists, to stop us from running our creativity and allowing the rest of the debate to proceed normally. Next my opponents gives an example with a point on how martin Luther used quick and speedy responses to others (presumably a queen or king), but which probably should have found its way into the "not enough space section". I would like to remind my opponent and the audience that is this is a debate we are talking about, and not clashing speech responses. I would also agree that responses and rebuttals should be kept short, but it simply is a totally different case scenario when referring to debate. See, now anyone can make a huge speech, and respond to it with a few casual lines, but in a debate, when you are expected to argue each and every single little point, it much different, and more un-likely to do. I would also like to point out the hypocrisy of this argument seeing as my opponents own debating style is to use as many conflicting words, and complicated sentences as possible. And last, my opponent concludes this argument by saying that this problem may be easily fixed, by simply lengthening debate argument space (aka characters). However I don't possibly see how this can be a solution, seeing as the instigator can just as easily fill up that max space as well with arguments. ============= No Good Reasons ============= 1. Loss of Readers My opponent seems to think that I am the only one who holds the opinion, that long heated debates are interesting. This however, is most un-backed. I, and I am sure many other, love to read heated intense debates. Those who are simply to lazy too read more than a third round, in the long run, really have no bearing on the debate world. My opponent says a cursory look would affirm that my point is in-correct, yet, when one looks in the comments sections of debate they can find things such as RFD's and personal opinions on the out-come of the said debate. 2. Loss of Genuine Votes I think the assumption that people vote biasedly would be mildly in-accurate. I could actually prove to you by showing you several debates where individuals have voted according to the debate itself rather than their previous thought of the resolution. A simple look at comments, can prove all of these. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... These are only a few examples, of many. But the simple point is that most people look at the quality of the debate, rather than just vote their opinion. Granted their are some individuals who may do this, but their actions shouldn't be taken into account from the whole. 3. Unfair tactic In answer to my opponents question, yes I do understand that. What I don't understand is the problem with that. Now the chances of someone actually using that many characters, are very slim, however if someone still did decide to ridiculously use all that space for argumentation, then the same situation would still apply! Now whether an opponent chooses to respond to a lengthy response as such is there own personal decision, but they took up that responsibility, upon acceptance of the debate, did they not? It is for all these reasons I have provided, that it is most logical to release the character max limitation. thankyou -Philosophical