Debate.org should add higher post character options

"I believe debate.org should allow 9k, 10k, 11k, 12k, 13k, and 14k post character amounts." As states, this is my opponent's belief. He is saying that greater amount of characters are needed in order to fulfill the status of a debate. He states that if we increase the character count greater competition, more education, less clarification, and less misinterpretation will occur. I believe that by increasing post counts we will be turning off the idea of debate, competition will lessen, and ideas will either be grandstanded and ranted upon or put into such a perplexing show that the debate itself would become useless. Also, I believe that by lengthening the character count is a useless activity because a different format already exists for his problem. Ideas, such as ideas within philosophy and politics (as examples) can be explained all fairly shortly. For example, transhumanism is the belief that organic material and inorganic material should combine to form an ultimate human and that humanity will only survive if we embrace the idea that humans can be retrofitted with machines in specific places in order to help fulfill that. Transhumanism was stated here as an idea. Ideas and facts (from science and math) coming together can form more complex statements. These complex statements can eventually be put together and fought against each other. This is when the creation of an argument occurs. One person may say, "Transhumanism is wrong because of A". Another person may say, "Transhumanism is right because of B". These two people create an argument. The explanation of transhumanism was 358 characters (+ or -). Let us propose we had three ideas. That would be approximately just over 1000 characters. We now have 7000 characters to explain, rectify, and combine the arguments we present to an opponent. Ideas do not even need to be as long as I have shown. Hedonism: the idea that pleasure should be something seeked out by humans at all times. Communism: no private property and rule by the majority of the working class. Nazism: fascism combined with a hatred of Jews, Homosexuals, Atheists, and genetically different people. I have explained three ideas in less than I explained one. My opponent wishes to say that there is not enough space to debate, yet if a successful debate were to occur, then it would be short, simplistic, and to the point. Length does not imply something being better. Debate is meant to be a controlled argument. Rules are set in place. A topic is picked. That topic is to strictly be upheld. Running away from a topic while being a part of a debate will show inadequacy. The 8k limit it set for many reasons; one being that it is a rule which helps people focus on the debate. Is it a limited amount of characters? Quite. But if we had many characters to go upon, then would debate truly be occurring? Can you not argue all your points within the rules of a debate if it was too short? The point of a debate is not to come to a conclusion. The point of a debate is to win. How can rules be set in place if their is so much ruling to look after in such long posts? Who knows, a lengthier posting might even show someone that something is too long and they will not debate it. Many have done it before. Why do you think the undermark "TL;DR" has become so popular? Many people are simply not willing to read lengthy discussions, and when a debate is supposed to attract people, and length let people go away, then how can debate be accomplished? It can't. A competition, the center of a debate, is what helps drive it. According to you, more characters would mean more words which would mean more competition. Referencing from before, length does not mean more competition or better qualification. Length might even turn off many people. And although competition is very interesting in a verbal environment, if much more space is given, then people will start to go off on a tangent rather than actually debate a single subject. I guess what I am really trying to say is that ultimately, lengthier characters will be distracting from the original point of a debate. It is not up to you to clarify yourself. It is up to the listeners to do so. The listeners take in the information you provide, and always use it to influence the voting, no matter what. Length implies something more annoying than anything. All in all, the most important thing my opponent has forgotten is the round extenders. You can create up to 5 rounds. That is 40,000 characters for each person. That is over 17 pages single spaced on a word document. If it takes longer than that to prove a point, then either you don't understand the point you are trying to prove, or you are disregarding the rules of the debate and trying to take off more than you can chew.