Character max

========== Introduction ========== In my mind, character restraints are tertiary (at best) when considering things that need to be fixed on Debate.org. Nevertheless, it IS something that needs to be changed. Perhaps my opponent misunderstands the position I was advocating in my foregoing round. I am not content with the status quo, in fact, I think the character limits should be changed to allow for larger debates. It is my opponent's burden to illustrate how a character limit, of any size, is deleterious and/or unnecessary. ========== Not Enough Space ========== My opponent's specious claim that I am using semantics is mere casuistry! I am fully aware that my opponent is against limits in general, but what my opponent evidently does not understand is that his reasoning only justifiably illustrates the need for MORE allotted space, not the need for extirpation. Let me illustrate by way of analogy: I am driving down a road and find that the speed limit is too slow and I therefore conclude that the speed limit ought to be increased. Your reasoning would have us conclude that, since the speed limit is too slow, that we ought to eliminate speed limits all together. In my mind, this reasoning is both unnecessarily extreme and verifiably unwarranted. ========== Limits Creativity ========== If I may, I would like to add clarity to my opponent's court room analogy. He believes that a person's testimony of an event will be severely hurt if they are only allowed to present the facts (I, for one, would be outraged if I were only allowed to hear the facts and not the hearsay and irrelevant!) Imagine a man gets up to give his side of the story (he is being charged with murder, and is obviously guilty I might add), he then goes on and on, replicating the overdone, melodramatic, and maudlin scribbles of typical biographical speeches. In fearful aspiration to prolong his life, this man becomes redundant and pedantic. I for one would be against such loquacious soliloquies! In fact, I think the judge should rightfully stop the man and insist that he rap it up. Creativity is NOT hampered by lack of space, it is fostered – forcing debaters to give teeth and horns to every word! Martin Luther, the man behind the protestant reformation, is not known best for his long winded speech given to the Diet of Worms (in both Latin and German) but rather for his succinct reply that followed thereafter. It began, "since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply..." Luther goes on to give the most famous reply of the Protestant reformation! And it was only a few sentences! Creativity is in simplicity, making even the most powerful points accessible in but a few key words. It is my understanding that any inadequacy in responding to points at length could be fixed by increasing the limit or allowing for variable, sequential increases as the rounds progress. ========== No Good Reasons ========== 1. Loss of Readers My opponent's personal feelings avail to nothing, especially when they are observably false. Debates with lengthy rounds are less read than shorter debates (especially those with fewer rounds). A cursory look at any of the existing debates will confirm the general reliability of this fact. 2. Loss of genuine votes It is not hard to see that those debates that are observably less read will not receive as many votes. And the votes that they do receive will most likely be the result of a biased voters who read the resolution only. 3. Unfair tactic I'll use this space to ask my opponent a brief question: Do you understand that no character limits could reasonably allow a debater to post over (and well over if they liked) 100,000 characters and innumerable videos in just one round? In my mind it would be outrageously disingenuous for my opponent to open his first round with 6,000 characters, followed by a second round of 100,000! – I wouldn't know where to start, or if I could even begin to wade through all of that material! Thank You, InquireTruth