The Character Limit at Debate.org is a Nuisance and Should Be Removed.

First off, thank you for taking part in today's debate. Admittidly, I'm a tad surprised that someone took the challenge so quickly, but maybe not as many other people have needed more space. I'm just speaking out of personal opinion on the matter, as I have quite recently run out of room in my debate on the Water For The Poor Act. I ended up having to delete a point I was trying to make that would have added to my stance. Secondly, to clarify points 4 and 5. Point 4 was establishing that my proposal had advantages whilst point 5 was establishing that my proposal had no disadvantages. I guess it could be combined into one point saying that the overall impact is positive, however I see no way that not doing so makes me "childish". I was just clearly putting it out there in a way that would confused no one. Your Points: 1. It prevents people from going extremly into depth. 2. It prevents people from just copying and pasting from websites most of the time. 3. It helps debate.org keep its bandwith strong. 4. It serves a purpose- just to contradict you saying that it doesn't. 5. You get 24,000 characters in a 3 round debate. That should be more than enough. My Responses (In order) 1. Why would going in depth into a topic be a bad thing? If going in depth is neccesary to discover reasons why one side of a debate is wrong, than thats what should happen. I hardly think a debate should not be able to showcase the debaters logical prowess to its fullest extent just because "going in depth is bad". That is a ridiculous notion and one that is against the very heart of debate: education. 2. People copying and pasting from websites isn't really a problem in debate. Maybe plaigarism is an issue, but that has real-world ramifications. The fact is, debate is about proving your points are stronger than the other points. There are 2 ways to do this. Step-by-step going thru the points and proving that, logicaly, your points are better OR by providing literature and evidence that supports your views. I hardly think that people copying websites is really bad in a debate, as a debate is about education. If the content is appropriate and reasonable, then why not copy (and site) the website? The only problem about copying websites is plaigarism, which the character limit (or lack thereof, hopefully) doesn't affect. 3. When I suggested removing the character limit, I wasn't suggesting people start pouring essay's in. Obviously it should be kept to a reasonable level, but I also suggested that it could possibly just be upped further to say may double what it is at. You may say that the majority of people wouldn't use that much, but to the few that do it would be a nice feature. To the many who don't, it wouldn't affect them. 4. This point was just in contradiction of what I said, with no real backing on it. I'll just clarify what I think the debate should be voted on. I think that Con should win if the Pro side doesn't respond to a significant point and then Con mentions that, or if Pro loses on an important point and the Con points it out. I don't think the Con should have to attack everything to win, as there may not be attacks on everything. However it is worth noting that without a reason for having it, the character limit is superfluous and therefore unnescesary. I think if I respond to everything adequately, I should win the debate, and if revleader5 wins on a significant point, he should win. It's as simple as that. Go ahead and provide clash on every point if you want, but I won't burn you for not. 5. I, myself, have had cases where 8,000 a round doesn't hold to be enough. Now I'm not pretentious enough to even suggest I know the experiences of all other users, but I'd feel relatively confident in saying that at least some people must have wanted more space at some time in a debate. As for the characters remaining in this post, I don't think that this debate should serve as an example for all other debates. Of course some topics can't be covered as much as others. But removing a character limit wouldn't hurt anybody. It would just help. For example, if a debate on abortion was opened (which I'm sure there have been several), I beleive that in order to cover it adequately, more than 48,000 characters would be needed (assuming 3 rounds for each person). So, in conclusion, I urge you the voter to consider this before anything else in today's debate.