DDO Should Allow Unlimited Characters in Debates

Thanks, 9spaceking.---CON CONTENTION 1: GISH GALLOPINGPro does not respond to the fact that the Pro world will always have greater risk of Gish Galloping, merely attempting to downplay that risk.Pro responds to my point that responding to Gish Gallops usually requires a comparable amount of time and characters by providing an example of a Gish Gallop that could have been refuted without a comparable amount of time. This is irrelevant, not all Gish Gallops fit this pattern. Consider this example of what is fundamentally a Gish Gallop that required fundamentally the same amount of time: http://rationalwiki.org..., it's entirely possible that terrible and hard-to-respond-to-in-less-time Gish Gallops will occur in the Pro world.CON CONTENTION 2: REALISMPro does not respond to the fact that the real world has both character and time limits, and so should online debates.Pro responds to my points that infinite characters allow babbling nonsense by stating that judges would skip over these points. As I pointed out, you can only skip an argument if you know it is nonsense, which requires you to read it through at least once.Pro responds to my points that infinite characters allow near-infinite-length arguments that the debater would have to defend said near-infinite-length arguments, which would be difficult. This attack only works against copy-pasted arguments, and even then doesn't work if responses already exist in the copy-pasted essays. However, this point is invalid against premade arguments, because it's possible to write an intensely long argument and back it up before the round starts and swamp the opponent with evidence.PRO CONTENTION 1: HIGHER AVERAGE VOTING SCORESPro responds to my point that the data presented is not detailed enough to allow a true comparison between, say, low-character limit debates, high-character limit debates, and infinite-character limit debates, by stating that the source he cited simply couldn't break the data up into these groups. This doesn't excuse the fact that this argument cannot be certain to apply to all finite character-limit debates. Furthermore, this is a new argument in the last round, which Pro previously dropped, and should be ignored. PRO CONTENTION 2: MORE REALISTICSee "CON CONTENTION 2: REALISM".PRO CONTENTION 3: LESS FOCUS ON ARGUMENT LENGTHSee "CON CONTENTION 2: REALISM".Furthermore, Pro did not respond to my point that substantative debate can easily occur within the given character limits.Furthermore, Pro agreed with my point that concision is better.Furthermore, Pro responds to my point that forcing debaters to focus on more important arguments aids real-world education by stating that infinite-character limit debates also force debaters to focus on important arguments. Infinite character debates may encourage debaters to be concise and focus on important issues, but finite character debates force debaters to do so, meaning that Pro gets less of the benefits from this issue. Furthermore, this is a new argument in the last round, which Pro previously dropped, and should be ignored.---CONDITIONAL CON COUNTERPLANPro does not respond to the fact that I have justified this exact number, destroying his argument on that issue.Pro restates again that this plan does not fit DDO's "pattern". However, Pro continues to fail to provide reasons why we should care about fitting the pattern, or why we shouldn't change the pattern, making this argument impactless.CONDITIONAL REBUTTAL TO PRO CONTENTION 1: HIGHER AVERAGE VOTING SCORESPro does not respond to the fact that Pro's evidence about "limited character debates" does not include my plan, meaning that the "Exactly 83,215,642 Characters Limit" plan may well achieve maximum voting scores, if those are valuable. Instead, Pro merely states that we have no evidence that 83,215,642 Character Limit debates do better. This is irrelevant; we have no evidence that infinite-character debates are better than 83,215,642 Character Limit debates, meaning that we have no evidence either way.CONDITIONAL REBUTTAL TO PRO CONTENTION 2: MORE REALISTICPro fails to respond to my arguments against his Contention 2.First, this bites into CON CONTENTION 1: GISH GALLOPING. If anyone ever wrote this length of an argument, then it would be effectively impossible to respond to, destroying any hope at a good debate. Hence, allowing infinite arguments allows destruction of good debates.Second, this bites into CON UNDERVIEW: PRO'S SIDE IS IMPOSSIBLE. Even if we continually must keep bumping up the limit, it will never actually reach infinity. So even though our character limit is 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 characters, it is still not infinite.CONDITIONAL REBUTTAL TO PRO CONTENTION 3: LESS FOCUS ON ARGUMENT LENGTHPro again states that it's possible to need more than 83,215,642 characters. See CONDITIONAL REBUTTAL TO PRO CONTENTION 2: MORE REALISTIC, point 2, for a response.---Pro again restates that infinite characters allows freedom of expression, while ignoring the fact that it is never necessary to have an infinite character limit. Instead, the site could simply have a "I need more characters" form, where debaters could type the number corresponding to the characters necessary, which would always be finite. In other words: All possible ground is Neg ground. Because it is impossible to have an actual infinite, it is always unnecessary to have an infinite character limit.---Reasons to Vote Con:Conduct: Clear Con win. Pro called my counterplan "very troll" and "ridiculous". I cried for 17 hours after this heinous behavior.Spelling: Clear Con win. Pro stated "easily" instead of "easy" in Round 3. I cried for 71 hours after this heinous behaviour.Arguments: Clear Con win. Pro failed to respond to many Con points. Limited-character debates better combat Gish-Galloping and are more realistic. 83,215,642 Characters gets effectively all Pro ground, if any such exists.Sources: Clear Con win. Pro has 3 sources. Con has 7 sources.---Thoughts:Mods, if you're reading this:1: Please bump up character limits, maybe to 25,000.2: Please bump up maximum time limits, maybe allowing 1 or 2 weeks to produce a response argument.