Debate.org should add higher post character options

"He states that if we increase the character count greater competition, more education, less clarification, and less misinterpretation will occur." This is the only spot my opponent actually even mentioned my points. Mentioning does not mean you can argue them in the next round. It's like saying: My opponent's points were: 1. (point) 2. (point) 3. (point) My points are: 1. (point) 2. (point) Then waiting till the last round when you have the last word and refuting them. Does that make logical sense? Do you view stating my point as rebutting it? No. My point still stands. Also, I specifically do not care what you set the rules to. As the instigator, I may set the type of debate and the resolution, plus the teams. If you don't want to follow the rules, then don't accept the debate. No one is forcing you to debate me. Of course, instigator setting the rules only goes so far. I can't force you to say "Hi there" every round or something ridiculous along those lines. Simply, I am setting the debate standard, and by accepting the challenge you accepted the standard. Voters, I would ask that you mark my opponent down for trying to ignore the policy rule I set from the beginning. The rules I follow are the site rules. If you disagree with them and wish to make a pure "policy" debate, then why not start your own debating site? The rules do not say we may not debate with policy rules. If indeed it said so, you would have merit for discarding my rule, but it does not. If not, then notice that I do not have to abide by the rules that you set out. My opponent doesn't physically HAVE to follow the rules, but I would ask those voting on this round to mark Con down for doing so. He accepted the rules when he pressed the "Accept Challenge" button. If we were to merely follow through with every rule you said...it becomes pointless. Did I set a rule as silly as "If you accept this debate, I automatically win?" If you don't want to debate with policy rules, then don't accept the challenge. "Misquotations...17 pages of a Word Document to debate." I did not misquote. I simply quoted a specific sentence for the convenience of the voters. Voters can easily go back to your argument and read it for themselves. My opponent made no refutation of my actual point. Secondly, my opponent did not refute the fact that it is not over 17 pages, it is only 7. That's a five round debate, and most are 3 rounds. "Notice how I had five contentions and my opponent had four. The subject being, "A corrupt government is better than no government." We both had space to argue and to respond to those arguments." My opponent is getting nowhere by quoting a debate he had. 1. Maybe my opponent is just good at making his point concise. 2. This debate round did not consist of several responses. Sometimes each response takes a lot of text. This example is inadequate. 3. Nine contentions is not necessarily that large. It depends on the contentions. "http://www.debate.org...... Here we have another debate where I had three contentions beginning and that is what I argued the whole way through." 1. Three contentions is barely anything. 2. I noticed something very funny about this debate. Look at the vote tab. Sycrone voted for Sycrone on all 7 points. Just keep in mind my opponent is not the most ethical debater. (Another example of this is the fact that he did not care what rules I set out from the beginning, even though he agreed to them by accepting the challenge). "And that is why debate exists. The best arguments must be chosen for the competition. ..length does not quantify something being better." But it still increases education. The more points are brought up, the more the opposition learns about his/her position and can adapt and learn how to refute them. No, you don't have to have that many points. It's preferable to be able to bring up as many as possible, though. "Sometimes it isn't, which is why you try to limit yourself in what you say. In the debating environment, people have to learn to argue a point within limits. In other words, infinite argument can't occur. Debate so far has grown on this site, with many people debating all the time considering three years ago it wasn't this busy. If people didn't have enough space to debate, don't you think less people would've come to this site?" This point doesn't even make sense. "If people...less would come to this site?" This is a complete logical fallacy. My opponent is suggesting that since so many people have come, then it's obviously not a problem. 1. We obviously can't predict how many people would have come if there was a higher character limit. 2. Again, I'm not arguing that it is NECESSARY to add a higher character limit. I am only arguing that it would be net beneficial. My opponent has not provided enough argumentation to show that it is not net beneficial. "Then find a lesser amount of links to argue a point. Many debates have adequate explanation within them. Many times people have argued evolution and science and philosophy, all of which have many arguments, counter-arguments, and much explanation, yet nobody else is desperately complaining for change." Again and again my opponent acts as if everyone on this site is a professional at making their points concise. 1. Links: Sometimes you can't have less links. I've seen a 9 link point which couldn't have been reduced. 2. If those people found out there was a new higher character limit, I'm sure they would be glad. It's not that big of a problem that the character limit is so low. It's just annoying for some. For example, right now I'm at 1,500 characters. I'm close to running out and I still have many points to negate. "As said before, many difficult debates have been argued under the limit." It's possible to argue under the limit, but it is not preferential. "Yes, I have...reasons for it being limited. I am not arguing that it is purely not limited ... ...the limit is there and exists for a reason." A reason that doesn't matter. The instigator chooses whether he wants a long debate with possibly less votes, then this allows for the instigator to choose such. "14,000 character debates with 5 rounds will literally go into 30 pages of microsoft word document." Obviously the word count is flawed since I used the same font found on this site and 17 pages was 7 pages. "Debating together" That means both of you. Not one. " He has purposely wasted space in order to make his argument seem stronger." As if I have never done this type of formatting. "Or, you can learn how to read and respond with your own ingenuity" Do I sense an insult? In conclusion, my opponent never addressed my response to his fallacious argument that it is better to have a more concise debate. Through all his refutation, he basically tried to make not having this higher character limit and having this character limit the same. (As in, it is not necessary to have a higher character limit). But, what's the disadvantage to a higher character limit? None. There are the advantages of Education and More points (which my opponent has not adequately refuted). Think about it voter. Let's say you're dreading having to judge a huge wall of text. No one's forcing you to judge it. Let's say you're debating someone and you are annoyed at the amount of words he's writing. No one's forcing you to accept the challenge. There's no disadvantage to increasing the flexibility and allowing for more words. On the other hand, there are many advantages. Please vote Pro because Con has not provided enough argumentation to vote for him. Note all the elipsis I had to put in to make this post fit. I had to delete several words to fit this post. I did not write more than usual.