DDO Should Allow Unlimited Characters in Debates

Thanks, 9spaceking.---Clarification of debate:Con can defend any number of characters as a limit for debates as long as it is finite, because the inverse of "DDO Should Allow Unlimited Characters in Debates" is "DDO Should Not Allow Unlimited Characters in Debates". This means that any non-infinite character limit is Con ground.---CON CONTENTION 1Unlimited debates allow the ultimate Gish-Galloping. If I had a debate and thought that I was losing, I could simply copy-paste an infinite number of arguments from the Internet that vaguely relate to the topic. It would be impossible for the opponent to respond to all of said arguments. Or I could use a random-essay generation site, such as http://www.elsewhere.org..., and post infinite essays. It would be impossible to read, much less comprehend or respond to an infinitely long argument, making it possible to royally screw over debates that could have been good.If Pro proposes that people would be voted down for such action, then Pro is supporting a reason to simply have limited character debates - because you don't need to rely on people to vote down bad behavior when you make it impossible, which means that Con gets more of this advantage.CON CONTENTION 2Limited character debates increase focus on concision and clarity, which are very important in the real world. Nobody cares about your idea if it take half an hour to explain when it should take a minute. Because limited character debates force debaters to make their arguments concise and yet still make sense, limited character debates increase real-world benefits of debating.CON REBUTTALSPro Contention 1: Higher average voting scoresPro states that debates with unlimited characters generally have higher voting scores than do debates with limited characters. However, we have no breakdown of the evidence whatsoever. It's entirely possible that, like here, very low-character limit debates are low-quality and bring down the average of limited character. Without knowing the methodology of this study, we have no idea whether 10,000 character debates, or the current DDO maximum, would have scores of 4.99 or 0.01. Hence, disregard this evidence as proof of the better nature of unlimited character debates.Furthermore, just because people believe these debates to be better doesn't mean that they're objectively better.Pro Contention 2: More realisticActually, limited-character debates are far more realistic. As even Pro notes, no speech has endless time, and people can only talk at limited words per minute. Limited character debates best mimic this. While unlimited character debates may allow for more detail, limited character debates force people to master the skills of producing concise arguments and finding the most important points of an argument, rather than prattling on endlessly on each point. This turns Contention 2, because limited-character debates maximize real-world benefit.Pro Contention 3: Less focus on argument lengthWhile allowing for more detail is good, this can be achieved through larger character limits, not infinite character limits. Furthermore, it's clear that 10,000 characters allows for plenty of small and large arguments, as evidenced by some of the best debates on the site. (For example, http://www.debate.org...) So the benefit gained from infinitely large debatesFurthermore, as pointed out earlier, forcing debaters to make their arguments concise is better, because it is more realistic and educational.Furthermore, as touched on earlier, forcing debaters to focus on more important arguments aids real-world education (because most of the things that people say are absolutely pointless, and sifting out the pointed ones is a skill) and reduces incentives to Gish-Gallop.---CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANIf you don't buy my arguments above, I propose a counterplan. As an alternative to the affirmative's "Unlimited Characters" plan, I propose instead a "83,215,642 Characters Limit" plan.The fastest speaker in the world speaks at 637 words per minute [1]. But let's assume that the average DDO user speaks twice as fast as the world champion, and clocks in at 1274 words per minute. This is ridiculously fast.The average word in the English language has 5.1 characters [2], and 1 following space, for a total of 6.1 characters. But let's assume that the average DDO user is twice as eloquent as the average English speaker, and clocks in at an average of 11.2 characters. This is ridiculously eloquent.The longest filibuster in Congress was 24 hours and 18 minutes, or 1458 minutes, long. But let's assume that the average DDO user speaks for twice as long as the longest Senatorial filibuster, and clocks in at 2916 minutes. This is ridiculously lengthy.So let's say that the average DDO debate is the equivalent of speaking words of average length 11.2 characters at 1274 words per minute, or 14268.8 characters per minute, for 2916 minutes, for a total of 41,607,820.8 characters. And let's say that the the most exceptional DDO users are twice as long-winded as their peers and would prefer 83,215,641.6 character debates.Hence, the preferred maximum number of characters would be 83,215,642 characters, because this accurately reflects peak human ability.CON CONDITIONAL-COUNTERPLAN CONTENTION 1:Limiting the number of characters CONDITIONAL REBUTTALSPro Contention 1: Higher average voting scoresAs far as I can tell, no debate on the website mentioned by Pro has over 83,215,642 characters. The fact that most "unlimited" debates can actually fit within Con advocacy provides a reason to vote Con.Pro Contention 2: More realisticNobody can speak infinitely. All people die, and so will the universe. But speaking 83,215,642 characters is easy. Hence, 83,215,642 characters is more realistic (or less unrealistic, really) than infinite characters.Pro Contention 3: Less focus on argument lengthSee Con's rebuttal to Pro's contention 1. Effectively all debates will fit within 83,215,642 characters, meaning that Con gets all of Pro's benefits.---PRO'S SIDE IS IMPOSSIBLEIt's impossible to have an actual infinite [4]. Hence, all debates will have limited characters. Hence, there can never be Pro ground, because it's always possible for Con to defend that finite character limit as justified.---VOTE CONNot only are DDO's limited character debates better than infinite characters, but Con obtains all of Pro's benefits for supposedly "infinite" character debates.---REFERENCES[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.wolframalpha.com...[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4] www.reasonablefaith.org/forming-an-actual-infinite-by-successive-addition