Opponents in a debate should have an option to extend the debating period.

It's nice to have a short debate now and again. :) While the capacity to mutually extend a debate would seem useful and logical, I find it to be the opposite. Hence, I negate the resolution. Here are my reasons for doing so: 1. Time is already adequate: as it is, allowing debaters a maximum of 72 hours to complete a single round of argumentation is perfectly effective. If a person cannot budget the time specified by the author of the debate, then that person has the opportunity to refuse to debate the topic as presented, or may start a new debate with modified times to suit his or her fancy. 2. Coersion and in-fighting: since the choice must be mutual, according to the affirmative, new types of problems with arise that are actually worse than the previous "unfriendliness" that my opponent cites: One debater could easily be pressured into consenting to a time extension that he/she does not actually want. If the time period becomes unfavorable, the unwillingness to adjust one's time periods could cause people to stop debating with this person, which causes unnecessary censorship and tension. With a fixed time limit that cannot be changed, this tension cannot occur. If the choice isn't mutual, then all sorts of problems besides those outlined above can occur. 3. Skill building: in any other form of competitive debate, or even in the general context of life, deadlines and time limits are a reality. The time limits serve a specific purpose: stagnant debates are essentially worthless. Not only will the website suffer more due to individual schedule fluctuations, but meeting a given deadline, word count, etc. teaches a specific skill to members of the website. It is another piece of the educational infrastructure that we should not seek to erode. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response to the affirmative advocacy: Argument 1: *Fewer forfeits would be a blessing, but a cost-benefit analysis shows that, in a world with fewer forfeits vs. a world with more animosity, stagnating debates, and less overall education, the negative world will outweigh. *Though statistical analysis is nearly impossible, forfeits are not abundant on the website. After perusing all of the debates on the first two pages of the home page, I've yet to find a single forfeit in a debate that was worth reading. The most popular, most educated, best debates on the website, those that are worth reading, are followed through. And, if they aren't, then the opponents simply repost the debate. A fix for this exists in the system, and is just as convenient as a time extension. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. .. *Extension of time allows bad debaters to continue to debate badly, as forfeits are a systemic check. Reconsidering my second response to your first contention (above), bad debaters who are cornered tend to forfeit remaining rounds, or debaters who can't time manage properly forfeit rounds. Automatic forfeits encourage these debaters to reassess their skills and schedules, and encourages them to return to the website after having improved themselves. Either that, or it will scare the bad debaters away. Forfeiting is basic quality control. Argument 2: *Please cross-apply my 2nd argument. Coming to a mutual decision about time extensions will actually cause more unfriendliness than a forfeit. In fact, if a debater is that cheesed about his opponent forfeiting, he can simply abandon the old debate and post the topic freshly with higher standards, which will inherently improve the overall quality of the debates on the website. Argument 3: *Please explain this more so I can respond properly in round 2. By the logic in my round 1 post, it would seem that this argument is negated. Seeming logical and being logical are two different things. :D Thanks for posting this topic, and I look forward to your response!