DDO Should Allow Unlimited Characters in Debates

Gish GallopingI understand that within unlimited character debates, you can be able to do Gish Galloping. However, people will waste precious time, and not only so, risk their ban within their Galloping on and on. Because of the introduction of unlimited characters, I contend that additional moderators be added, such as maybe Larz (who introduced this concept in the first place), or Whiteflame (one of the best voters on the site, he could easily spot out such massive Gish Galloping as mentioned by the opponent"My opponent tries talking about how Gish Gallops' responses are unrealistic. This is untrue. Let's take a look at a Gish Gallop in one of my lost debates. From: http://www.debate.org... 52 reasons why Sswdwm cannot win this debate1. he only has a 62.50% win percentage2. his name is really really weird. No offense dude.3. Sswdwm's name is really really hard to type up. No offense.4. his elo is at an measly 2,1055. there are debaters at 8000!!6. it can be concluded from 4 and 5 that he's not that good of a debater7. no one whom has forfeited even one round has won against me8. 9spaceking requires much effort to win against, as can be seen fromhttp://www.debate.org......9. 9spaceking is serious on this debate.10. 9spaceking agrees on this topic11. 9spaceking has technically only lost 2 debates where he was serious and agreed on his side of the topic12. thus, sswdwm cannot win because of 9, 10 and 1113. his profile pic. is hard to see 14. he is interested in women15. he isn’t gay16. gay is essentially not wrong17. sswdwm is wrong18. wrong=false19. sswdwm has made false claims in round 120. sswdwm will not win because of his false information21. 9spaceking has made no grammar mistakes (because he pointed them out and he is false)22. everything is awesome! Everything is good when you’re part of a team!23. sswdwm’s username does not contain any letter from “Everything”24. sswdwm is a person, not everything25. sswdwm is not awesome. No offense.26. sswdwm is not part of a team, as far as I’m concerned.27. sswdwm isn’t good. No offense.28. sswdwm uses Wikipedia.29. Wikipedia is not a credible source.30. that means sswdwm is only 9/10 credible.31. GCL’s debate has been explained.32. RT9119’s debate has been explained.33. sswdwm is now only 7/10 credible.34. 7/10 is a “C minus”35. C minus will get you to no good college36. sswdwm’s argument won’t even get him into a good college37. sswdwm has not been in a good college38. sswdwm has bad education39. I go to TJHSST40. TJHSST is the best school (sometimes second best) of US41. I have awesome grades at TJHSST42. I currently have an awesome education43. awesome education>bad education44. I will win over sswdwm45. sswdwm likes badminton46. badminton is my 2cd favorite sport47. therefore sswdwm is only 2cd best to me48. sswdwm doesn’t support a president49. sswdwm therefore doesn’t support a democracy50. sswdwm is therefore horrible. No offense intended.51. nobody votes for horrible people52. back to you! Oh wait, you can’t rebut back! Muhahahahaha! Now, let me easily rebut all these 52 points easily. -Opponent offers no assertion to back up 1-5. (Why does a bad win ratio and a low elo make him a bad debater?)-Just because opponent has never lost a debate with a forfeit does not mean sswdwm won't win this-9, 10 and 11 have no backup....again, why will sswdwm in particular lose? He hasn't lost before.-Opponent offers no assertion from 13-18 -Nothing to back up 19-27 (sswdwm has no letter from "Everything", and he isn't "everything", therefore he will lose/isn't good? What kind of lame logic is that?) -No evidenct to back up 39-40, nor anything to support that just because sswdwm has 70% accuracy he has the same grade in school-45-47 make no sense.-48-51, the leap of logic here makes no sense. As you can see the amount of text/arguments needed to rebut Gish Gallops are far easier to create than the Galloping themselves. Keep in mind, that, with huge lack of logic, these galloping points can be easily taken as free conduct point. And who wants their opponents to have free conduct point? Definitely not me... (oh wait how ironic XD, let's pretend that never happened)Indeed, and online there is also the limit of how much one can type up and how much people can read. Judges can only give so much time to read the arguments in the limited amount of voting period, so this encourages the people debating to try to make it so that their arguments are more readable.The babbling nonsense only weakens the case.As for the people's quotes, the debaters must still back up these quotes, otherwise they're just fallicious appeals to authority. As for random-essay generators, these can only effectively work for one round, then the debater who orignally copied the essay now has to make up his own responses and back up the essay. Which means he has to read the insanely long essay, cry his tears out, and burn his hand on a stove (figuratively) to find out effective sources that back up the essay. As for the higher average voting score, well, the best he could do was view unlimited verses limited. In addition, since the votes were better, those who voted the good scores on the votes must have thought it a better vote. And what do better votes come from? More information in the debate, and more clear expression within the debate can inevitably lead to better voting. Thus, if we apply unlimited characters to debate.org, the votes might not be as biased! "forcing debaters to focus on more important arguments aids real-world education..." Exactly. Even with unlimited characters debaters still have to focus on important arguments. They cannot dawdle and waste time elaborating a single evidence even though they can go on and on about one single argument. As for the counterplan, the plan is ridiculous. Once again, there is no reason to change the pattern. The character limits all look nice and dandy, and suddenly you see "83,215, 642 limit". The moderators would not like this because it is hard to type up, does not look neat and good compared to those other nice numbers, and is completely weird. And in addition, my opponent's own point counters this. If I can generate a massive essay, then surely I can surpass 82 million? There has been no evidence that the massive 82 million limit creates better voting scores. Maybe people won't even use that 82 million, because the number looks awry and ridiculous. As for my side being impossible, I am not contending for infinity characters. How much must I say this--I am only contending for an option to rid of the limited character rule so that people can express themselves better, have better voting scores, still concentrate, and have a more flexible option. It is because infinity being impossible to reach that people have flexibility and can finally display their full skills. IN CONCLUSION After the moderators read this debate, they may change their mind, they may not. Maybe they'll even add a 20,000 character option to soften and satisfy those who are restricted by merely 10,000 characters. But they'll definitely not accept the 82 million characters; that is just weird and does not work out, as well as contradictory to my opponent's arguments. Regardless of whether the moderators chose to apply this option that gives more freedom to debaters as well as realism, I still stand by the resolution and think that DDO should adopt Edeb8's option for.... unlimited characters. VOTE ME.