debate.org should not have limits/preset number of rounds in debates

>>granted, this builds skill of being a good debater, such as thoroughly organizing your thoughts and making your position clear.<< I've been granted a point before I even started. Thanks! >>however, the lack of potential ideas/thoughts that would be presented after the limit of rounds far outweighs the 'skills' built in a debate with a set number of rounds.<< Here, my opponent is suggesting that debates cannot in 5 rounds (the max) contain enough content. Personally, I think 3 rounds is plenty. Why? Sure, there's often more that can be said. But unless all your posts are about 8000 characters, you can fit the extra content in. And if your posts are approaching the sound barrier (otherwise known as 8000 chars/post), you definitely don't need any more rounds than 3 or 4. Why? _no one reads a 10 page debate_. Your system encourages voters to not read the whole debate and simply vote based on who they agree with or who's first few points were better. As it is, people don't read 3 and 4 round debates with long posts. Unless your proposal also transforms the voters, it fails. >>not having a set number of rounds might create a friendlier atmosphere and encourage more of a conversation than a debate.<< Good idea, now go start conversation.com. Debate.org is for debate, not conversation. A messaging system is soon to be made public, that can be used if you just want to conversate. Yes, I said conversate. Cry. >>but, even though that could, in a worst case scenario, eliminate the idea of debating on debate.org and instead talking about issues, the information, possibly crucial to one's case, would be worth it.<< It would be worth screwing up the entire site? If the idea of debating on debate.org becomes pointless, so does the site. >>one would be able to clearly see the thought process of the debaters and might understand the topic better rather than having to examine points that all intertwine.<< Points do intertwine. That's what makes a good storyline in a novel, and that's what makes a good debate. Independent points are usually the weakest ones. Much stronger points can be made by building off current points. >>it would be more organized if debaters went point by point, instead of whatever you can think of to support yourself in one long list.<< One long list is still one long list whether it's in separate posts with opponent's turns in between or in one post. One post is much more like the way professional debates are done, as is a set number of rounds. This is the function debate.org is trying to fulfill - to be a place for amateur debaters to debate. Why would we have a completely different debate structure than professionals? >>my proposition: there would be no limit on the number of rounds in a debate and the only way for it to end would be that either: both debaters agree on ending the debate, or a debater forfeits two 'rounds' in a row.<< Your proposition limits the ability of the debaters to plan. Not just plan the debate, but plan their own lives as well. If I'm on vacation for a week, I'll only take debate I know will be over before then. Also, people are stubborn. In some cases, both debaters would not be willing to call it quits on their end. Pointlessness ensues. The effects, I think I have shown, are negative overall for debate.org. Debating skills are not developed as well, Voters will even more often vote without reading the entire debate, It is a planning problem for debaters, since they can't organize based on how many rounds there are, It is a planning problem for debaters, since it makes it more difficult to plan something in real life, It will cause pointless debate that is not getting anywhere to perpetually continue. It lacks the benefit to make up for these negative effects.