Five-Round Debates Are Inferior To Three-Round Debates

Before I begin, I would like to request that my opponent retract and apologize for his many comments regarding my literacy. They were outlandish and completely unprofessional. I would have thought better of him. ---- Contention 1 Redux ---- (1) 10 rounds * 8000 characters = 80,000 characters possible for a debate. That IS absurd. More often than not, debaters are able to sufficiently share their ideas with 48,000 characters or less. Anything more is just surplus. You are avoiding my point. Many would-be voters are deterred from reading and voting and commenting on long, 80000 character strong, five-round debates. And it would be foolish to deny that. (2) You attempt to refute my second point by writing, "Five-round debates do not encourage vote bombing." That was not my main point. My main point was that vote bombing is more effective in five-round debates, because less real voters read and vote on them. With less votes, it becomes very easy to vote bomb someone. Take the debate.org user Rezzealaux ( http://debate.org... ) for example. Although he has been vote bombed by Josh, he still maintains a 50% win ratio (originally 100%). How is this so? No, he hasn't asked the cleaners to help him out. No, he hasn't messaged friends. No, he hasn't been working with Phil. He has just simply won so many debates by such a huge margin, that many of Josh's bombs are rendered void. If five-round debates are more susceptible to vote bombing (and they are), then they are obviously inferior to three-round debates. (3) You concede the following: "Five-round debates may only have a slighter better chance of losing the readers." Therefore, you concede this point. Five-round debates can lose readers in a smear war of circumlocution. ---- Contention 2 Redux ---- (1) My opponent attempts to argue my point -- that 80,000 characters is unnecessary for evaluating the merit of a position -- by assaulting my character. Dnick94, please address my point without being abusive. Thank you. (2) My opponent writes, "...eight thousand characters aren't (sic) a big sacrifice if the other side chose to make an informal argument of only 100 characters." Well, if an opponent only needs 100 characters to successfully argue a position, then a five-round debate becomes totally unnecessary. But let's be realistic. A five round debate typically deals with more complex issues. A five round debate typically requires a huge sacrifice, especially considering many debate.org users are honors/AP students. It's a lot, and more often than not, is completely unnecessary. Therefore, five-round debates are inferior to three-round debates. (3) To refute my point -- that five-round debates often lead debaters into a spiral of circumlocution and a multitude of valueless points -- my opponent offers a solution -- that debaters should follow a strict structural outline. However, his offering a solution only serves to exemplify the problem with five-round debates -- that five-round debates do indeed need a solution to be more coherent. ---- Contention 3 Redux ---- (1) My issue isn't the practical means of long debates, it is the ideal. Why waste space when it doesn't need to be wasted? Eighty thousand characters are completely unnecessary to extensively evaluate a topic, and five-round debates are wasteful. ---- Conclusion ---- I would like to thank my opponent for (1) accepting this debate, and (2) posting an excellent rebuttal. I look forward to his R2.