increasing # of debate rounds

Thanks to Truthseeker for his opening argument. I'll give my own case then refute his. C1: No one will read six round debatesSince my opponent wants the option to have more than the standard 5 rounds, we're looking at a six round match that he must defend (or more). The obvious problem here is that 6 rounds of back and forth 8000 character rounds is ridiculous. Assuming round 1 is for acceptance, that 80,000 characters of bickering. We might as well read a Steven King book, or a couple forum posts by Charleslb. The site already has a voting problem. There's no real incentive to vote on debates, and since the three debate requirement prevents a lot of people from voting, most rounds are decided by three votes or less. That's only talking about ones with three rounds of debating. Debates with 4 or 5 rounds of arguing get even less attention because few people are willing to read ten forum posts by Charleslb. Increasing this amount makes the problem even worse.C2: Long debates reduce RFD qualityA. Long debates don't get many votes, but in addition, the ones they do get typically aren't that good. The longer a debate is, the less likely that it will be read. Nevertheless, some people will vote on it just to at least get somebody on the board, even if they didn't read the whole thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does mean that longer debates tend to get poor-quality RFD's. The daunting length of a six round debate will pretty much deter anyone from reading it all, which means that any votes they do get will probably not be accurate and the RFD may have nothing to do with what was argued.B. Even if the whole debate was read and voted on, the length makes it inherently harder to judge. A reader can't remember all 9000 arguments that would be made over the course of 12 rebuttals. This means that any RFD will leave out arguments that could be crucial to the true outcome of the debate. That creates a higher probability of an incorrect vote or low-quality RFD. This would be alleviated by fewer rounds, which would require less arguments to remember and this make it easier to judge.C3: Long debates encourage rantingIn a six round debate, you don't have to be quick and concise like you do in a three round debate, In three rounds, you have to make your argument clear immediately and refute as thoroughly as possible because there isn't time to do it later. With six rounds, people can go on giant rants about their beliefs rather than presenting a concise argument just because they can substantiate it later. Also, imagine if two mediocre or bad debaters went at it for six rounds of 8000 characters. That would be such a joy to see, wouldn't it? The six round format is particularly disheartening in this instance, as ranting would be inevitable any time there's not two top-tier debaters facing off. Lets look at my opponent's case.He first argues that more rounds could help settle complex issues that require a lot of time to figure out. My contention 3 responds to this by saying that most debates with more than 5 rounds won't actually resolve the issue, but instead will encourage ranting which doesn't "settle" anything. I'd also say that a 3 or 4 round debate would actually give a more in depth discussion because debaters have to make their warrants as concise as possible, since there's not time to substantiate them later. He also says that it can take a lot of rounds of debating to get a Paradigm Shift, which means a change of the reader's opinion. This is responded to by Contention 1, which indicates that no one will read all six rounds of a debate so that their opinion can be changed in the first place.He gives three pre-emptive arguments against the argument that 6 round debates would go on forever. I never made this argument so they dont apply. Basically, five rounds in enough. Six, seven, or god forbid, ten rounds is too murderous of a read for Juggle to consider implementing it.