Debate.org should add higher post character options

My points in this the debate: 1. "increasing post counts we will be turning off the idea of debate" 2. "competition will lessen" 3. "ideas will either be grandstanded and ranted upon or put into such a perplexing show that the debate itself would become useless" 4. "lengthening the character count is a useless activity because a different format already exists for his problem" These quotes are all from the first and second posts of mine. The following is my explanation within the first posts. Are they the entirety of my argument? No, because they are contained within all my posts: 1. "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. " ~ Post 2 2. "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? " ~ Post 2 3. "And although competition is very interesting in a verbal environment, if much more space is given, then people will start to go off on a tangent rather than actually debate a single subject. " ~ Post 1 4. "All in all, the most important thing my opponent has forgotten is the round extenders. You can create up to 5 rounds. That is 40,000 characters for each person. " ~ Post 1 I have provided an explanation for my points. My opponent merely rephrases his own points while refuting mine. The burden of proof relies mostly upon him (and when it did not, I gave debates as evidence). He has literally no sources for anything he has brought up. The only source he did bring up was a quotation of my own debate, which he was against. My opponent has said these things: "If you don't understand a point, how can you adequately combat it? You can't. " I asked for proof. None was given. "But it still increases education. The more points are brought up, the more the opposition learns about his/her position and can adapt and learn how to refute them. No, you don't have to have that many points. It's preferable to be able to bring up as many as possible, though. " I asked for proof again. None was given. "People tend to actually write less than they need on debate. org. " This is conceding my point. My opponent here admits that (whether it is actually true or not) people on debat. org write less than they need. Why would someone who recognizes this want more space to write a debate? "There are the advantages of Education and More points" I asked for proof. None was given. No evidence was cited for this. His response to these? "My opponent is being hypocritical and I don't even need evidence for something purely logical. " According to my opponent, he is correct and I am wrong because he is logical and I am a hypocrite; yet he provides no evidence for his logic or me being a hypocrite. "First, my opponent hasn't brought up evidence for his own points. Secondly, I don't need evidence. " I brought up two debates of my own to reference from. "My opponent is trying to say that I need evidence to prove such. Education follows from more points, since you learn more about your case and how to refute arguments against it. " This can be accomplished without extending the amount of characters though. Like I said 3 times before; less length means that you must learn to pick out the best arguments and work with what you have instead of having the leisure to provide many arguments. And each time I ask my opponent to provide another debate that has this problem, he does not. Instead he cites this debate as too difficult for him to post in because of the limit. Yet he has enough space to complain about it. Why not take out the complaint, and type an argument? "I have a bigger bag, so I can fit more groceries in. " And if your groceries are bigger than the bag (which is what you are arguing) then they don't fit at all. I am merely saying carry it yourself, instead of relying on a website to give you the bigger bag. The biggest disadvantage to providing a higher character limit is that is would make people lazy. Not only would people read less of the debate, but the lax of debate space creates an environment that says, "This is not competitive. You are given tons of space to talk about whatever you want. You don't have to stay on point. You can merely go on about whatever you wish. " I come here for debates, not a quiet evening for a philosophical or scientific talk. "I'm sure at least a few will want more characters. " Yet, like always, he provides no evidence of this. "Even if you don't really want it, you have to agree that since it doesn't affect you unless you choose it, then it makes no sense to vote against it. " I have provided an explanation for this numerous times. See the point previous to the last one. "Con's argument that he was saying I have "ingenuity" was mostly interpreted as sarcasm. " This is the internet. Words are typed. Sarcasm implies a tone or volume of sorts. You cannot assume that I was sarcastic. I might be crying right now. I might be really happy. I might be so angry that I want to break some glass. Or I might even be having sex. You wouldn't know at all. Just because YOU interpret something a certain way does not mean you are correct. Definition of "should" from dictionary. com: "1. simple past tense of shall. 2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased. 3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. 4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize. " "Shall" as in "to will it". "Must" as in "to be willed". "Ought" as in "willingly". "Characters should be extended. .. " "Characters must be extended. .. " "Just in case Con hasn't noticed, you're no longer allowed to vote for yourself. " But previously I was. I was following the rules specifically to what the site allowed. Now I am unethical for following rules? I thought I was unethical for not following your rules? Why is it that you are contradicting yourself? "Ah, but what about a large debate? Voters, the reason I want a higher character limit is not for EVERY debate, but rather the ones that are long and need more space. " Which you have yet to truly show me for the need for it to exist. "This style of debate is sloppy and hard to follow. " Yet you seem to follow it perfectly. Just because it is hard for you does not mean it is hard for ALL the voters. "1. Size 12 is rather large" It's the standard size of all MSWord documents since 1995 :P " Roughly 2.25 pages per post. Where did my opponent get 17 pages? Was he not counting whitespace characters? Debate. org uses whitespace as characters as well. (Plus most debates are 3 to 2 rounds, not 5 or 4). " Including whitespace characters, 3.5 pages per post using 12 pt. font TNR. 3.5 * 5 = 18+- My opponents math is utter failure. 2.25*5 Let's break this down. .25+.25+.25+.25+.25=1.25 2+2+2+2+2=10 1.25+10=11.25 Including whitespace, the character count is NOT 2.25. It is 3.5. Check for yourselves, voters, like I've said all this time. My opponent merely wants you to rely on his calculation. How can you rely on someone whom can't multiply 2.25*5 properly? And even if most debates were 2 or 3 rounds, my suggesting is merely making the rounds larger. If my opponent had included a fifth round, he wouldn't have had to take all the characters out of his posts. He would've had 8,000 free characters. Yet he chose not to.