The Instigator
philosphical
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Pro (for)
Winning
59 Points

Character max

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,736 times Debate No: 9898
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (14)

 

philosphical

Con

This debate is referring to whether or not there should be a max character limit, or not.

I will be standing in opposition to this.
I believe there should not be a character debate for the following reasons (more may be brought up later in the debate).

1. Not enough argumentation space
2. It limits the flow of creativity for debaters
3. There is no good reason for there to be a character max.

NOT ENOUGH SPACE

I don't know about the rest of the DDO community, but I personally have had problems in this area. Have you ever been in a heated debate, and when trying to refute all of your opponents points, you realize you are out of characters? Some of your opponents points when refuting may take quite a bit of space for argumentation, while others may take very little.
But the problem is with the character max, is that the individual may not always be able to hit all of his opponents points because of the absurd limit.
What's debate if we can't even argue all the points that have been brought up?

LIMITS CREATIVITY

Some issues for people, may be alot heavier for some then they are for others.
By having a character limit, we dis-able the opportunity for the individuals to express there whole outlook on the situation, if it goes beyond 8000 characters.
By having to wait to bring up some points in the next round, or having to share little light on other points, so as to make room for others, we are taking away the full advantage of the very purpose of debate!

NO GOOD REASON
There really is no good reason for their to be a character limit. I can think of no way that it could be harmful. Yes, the debate may or may not go on a little longer, but that should be a good thing. If the individual taking up the debate, is not able to respond to long arguments because of other things, they should try to take up debates when they know they can get to them.
Making a character limit, is just restricting debaters from their full debating potential, and thus, should not be enabled.

thankyou
-philosophical
InquireTruth

Pro

==============
Introduction
==============

However brief our mortal lives truly are in the ever-growing expanse of an aging universe, I find it fair to wonder whether or not Debate.org ought to have a character maximum. Just think about all those debaters who, on the verge of explicating one of life's biggest questions, came to the edge of one of the most tenebrous precipices known to Debate.org – the character limit. Those unfortunate enough to have come to the edge of this infamous precipice may, in a fit of rage, wish that never such a thing as character limits existed at all! It is all too common for anger to lead into error. And I hope anger has not tainted my opponent's reason or malice closed his mind – for these tools are necessary (particularly necessary for what he endeavors to affirm).

My sesquipedal tendencies aside, and without further ado, I will now unmask the pretensions that in my opponent's first round masquerades as arguments.

==============
Not Enough Space
==============

On first appearances, this point seems perfectly reasonable. In fact, I think any veteran user of this site would resonate with this sentiment. However, does my opponent's conclusion really follow from his premise? In essence, is his point really just one big Non Sequitur? I think that it is. Clearly my opponent does not have a problem with limits in general, but rather the absurd limit currently allotted. Could this not be fixed by a significant increase in the max characters allotted? Or even a variable increase, in which all rounds sequentially increase their allotted character limit?

==============
Limits Creativity
==============

This is another example of poor reasoning. All my opponent's contentions can be resolved by merely increasing the limit.

More importantly however, I think my opponent's point is wholly incorrect! There is a certain art to being succinct. In fact, having to condense large points into a few sentences actually fosters creativity!

Though it may be hard to see through the paroxysms of frustration that come when one cannot adequately respond due to character restrictions, one needs to consider whether or not their points were pithily delivered. You'll find that the most quoted people are those who say a lot in few words.

If there were no character limit it would allow those of a lesser intellectual caliber to camouflage their intellectual poverty with circumlocution and grandiloquent nothings – meaning lost in the obscurity of jargon. A point that is forcefully condensed however, will reveal the true power of its point. As the late Robert Southey wisely said, "It is with words as with sunbeams, the more they are condensed, the deeper they burn."

==============
No Good Reason
==============

I'm actually rather surprised that the copious amount of readily available "good" reasons alludes my opponent! Certainty the fact that those debates that exceed well beyond the current 8000 character limit for multiple rounds will garner few, if any, readers, and subsequently few genuine votes, constitutes a "good" reason. Moreover, the absence of a character limit could cause certain debaters to employ an unfair tactic of overwhelming their opponent with text. Debates could virtually exceed the length of a novel!

So far as I can tell, I have come up with at least 3 good reasons:
1. Loss of readers
2. Loss of genuine votes
3. Unfair tactic and unnecessarily long debates!

Not only that, but with the advent of video embedding, debates could not only include hundreds of thousands of words, but be accompanied with dozens of videos!

I hope at this point it is clear that eliminating a character limit would actually cause more harm than good. Instead, I would recommend having more options regarding the amount of characters alotted.

Thank you,
InquireTruth
Debate Round No. 1
philosphical

Con

==========
Not Enough Space
==========

Through the use of semantics, my opponent has attempted to allude the audience to the idea that I have a problem 'absurd limit currently allotted' rather then limits in themselves.
This was not the point of this argument, however.
The point of this argument was to address the fact that the instigator, may happily use their 8000 characters to their liking with as many big and bold statements as they like.
Then we have the opponents who, despite their futile attempts to hit each and every argument with enough explanatory enough detail, they epically fail to get to each argument as intended, which is no fault of their own, seeing as they may have utilized all the characters allotted simply in arguing there opponents claims. Not to mention the fact that there would not nearly be enough room from all the refutation, to make their own arguments on the situation at hand.

==========
Limits creativity
==========

My opponent seems to think that is argument was brought up merely for the fact of complaining about not being able to be over-explanitive in making simple points.
However, that is simply not the case.
The purpose of this argument is to show that the character limit offers a strict line to what we can and can't do.
'Why is this a bad thing?', you may ask.
For example: Your in a court hearing, and the judge tells to that you only get 10 minutes to relate your side of the story.
Not only is the judge missing a great amount of detail from the story, but he is only hearing the facts, instead of the more important "whys".
Now say when we are making a case against an opponent, and we have used every last character we have left, yet we still have many more arguments to make on the subject, we have just substantially lost the ability and freedom to make and create many more points.
This limits creativity, because not only does it detract from the debating experience, but it also refrains us from getting the whole case scenario across.

==========
No Good Reason
==========

My opponent has offered three reasons that in his opinion are good ones.

1. Loss of readers.

I personally would not agree with this one. In fact I would say it would be quite the opposite. I love and enjoy reading a good heated debate in which both debaters use their max characters. I become dis-appointed when a debater has to stop a round due to the fact that they have run out of alleged characters.

2. Loss of genuine votes

I don't see how this would come into play at all for any reason in reading a longer debate. How could making longer refutations possibly effect the readers vote on a debate?
If anything, having an unlimited character max, would allow the readers and voters to see even more enlightenment on the debate, from both debaters, and open them up for a more proper judgement on the rounds.

3. Unfair tactic and unnecessarily long debates!

'Unfair tactic'? In what way, shape, or form, is having a longer character max unduly effective in the helping of one persons tactics over his/her opponents?
Aside from the 'unfair tactics' part being totally un-backed and irrelevant, long debates are better!
If a voter is simply too lazy to read the debate, then they are best not voting. However there are many others like me, who enjoy reading long debates, as it proves interesting and can be a time consuming pass time.

Increasing the number of characters in a argument, though essentially does nothing except for provide more room for some one to fill to the brim, and leave the opponent with not enough room to argue off of.
I strongly affirm that their should be an infinite character max for all these reasons provided.
Thank you
-Philosophical
InquireTruth

Pro

==========
Introduction
==========

In my mind, character restraints are tertiary (at best) when considering things that need to be fixed on Debate.org. Nevertheless, it IS something that needs to be changed. Perhaps my opponent misunderstands the position I was advocating in my foregoing round. I am not content with the status quo, in fact, I think the character limits should be changed to allow for larger debates. It is my opponent's burden to illustrate how a character limit, of any size, is deleterious and/or unnecessary.

==========
Not Enough Space
==========

My opponent's specious claim that I am using semantics is mere casuistry! I am fully aware that my opponent is against limits in general, but what my opponent evidently does not understand is that his reasoning only justifiably illustrates the need for MORE allotted space, not the need for extirpation. Let me illustrate by way of analogy:

I am driving down a road and find that the speed limit is too slow and I therefore conclude that the speed limit ought to be increased. Your reasoning would have us conclude that, since the speed limit is too slow, that we ought to eliminate speed limits all together. In my mind, this reasoning is both unnecessarily extreme and verifiably unwarranted.

==========
Limits Creativity
==========

If I may, I would like to add clarity to my opponent's court room analogy. He believes that a person's testimony of an event will be severely hurt if they are only allowed to present the facts (I, for one, would be outraged if I were only allowed to hear the facts and not the hearsay and irrelevant!) Imagine a man gets up to give his side of the story (he is being charged with murder, and is obviously guilty I might add), he then goes on and on, replicating the overdone, melodramatic, and maudlin scribbles of typical biographical speeches. In fearful aspiration to prolong his life, this man becomes redundant and pedantic. I for one would be against such loquacious soliloquies! In fact, I think the judge should rightfully stop the man and insist that he rap it up.

Creativity is NOT hampered by lack of space, it is fostered – forcing debaters to give teeth and horns to every word! Martin Luther, the man behind the protestant reformation, is not known best for his long winded speech given to the Diet of Worms (in both Latin and German) but rather for his succinct reply that followed thereafter. It began, "since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply..." Luther goes on to give the most famous reply of the Protestant reformation! And it was only a few sentences! Creativity is in simplicity, making even the most powerful points accessible in but a few key words.

It is my understanding that any inadequacy in responding to points at length could be fixed by increasing the limit or allowing for variable, sequential increases as the rounds progress.

==========
No Good Reasons
==========

1. Loss of Readers

My opponent's personal feelings avail to nothing, especially when they are observably false. Debates with lengthy rounds are less read than shorter debates (especially those with fewer rounds). A cursory look at any of the existing debates will confirm the general reliability of this fact.

2. Loss of genuine votes

It is not hard to see that those debates that are observably less read will not receive as many votes. And the votes that they do receive will most likely be the result of a biased voters who read the resolution only.

3. Unfair tactic

I'll use this space to ask my opponent a brief question: Do you understand that no character limits could reasonably allow a debater to post over (and well over if they liked) 100,000 characters and innumerable videos in just one round?

In my mind it would be outrageously disingenuous for my opponent to open his first round with 6,000 characters, followed by a second round of 100,000! – I wouldn't know where to start, or if I could even begin to wade through all of that material!

Thank You,
InquireTruth
Debate Round No. 2
philosphical

Con

===========
Not Enough Space
===========

Again my opponent has jumped to the conclusion, that I am against limits in general, which, is entirely un-true, given that he read my last argument.
Again, limits vary. When a limit is holding something, or someone back from doing something important, that's where the line should be drawn. And I would very much consider writing an argument important, would you not agree?
Now my opponent uses a quite peculiar example to dis-prove me on limits, using a scenario of speed limits.
This, my friends, is a perfect example of where limits may very. See, as opposed to debate responses, the only thing the speed limit is holding us back from is keeping our lives.

But, back on topic to not having enough space, when we are limited response space in a debate, we cannot flow the rest of what we need to argue in a sufficient enough manner (assuming the opponent as used up the max character limit with arguments, that is.)!

=========
Limits Creativity
=========

My opponent again assumes that my court-room analogy, is based solely upon semantics, and extra word usage, which is definitely not the case, I can assure you. Again, seeing as the judge as given you only a specific amount of time to relate your side of the story, however, you have to leave out some of the most important facts because you are allotted only a small amount of time!
I also think it is wrong to assume a man of obvious guilt, when there side of the trial hasn't been even laid down. Every individual in America has the right to fair and speedy trial, and there are alot of things that factor into murder cases, such as murder, wrongful accusation, protection of another, etc.
The same applies to a debate!
What if we are not fully allowed to respond to an accusation or question from the opponent, because we were too busy using our characters on answering the rest of our blasted opponents case. Is simply ludicrous that such a thing exists, to stop us from running our creativity and allowing the rest of the debate to proceed normally.

Next my opponents gives an example with a point on how martin Luther used quick and speedy responses to others (presumably a queen or king), but which probably should have found its way into the "not enough space section".
I would like to remind my opponent and the audience that is this is a debate we are talking about, and not clashing speech responses.
I would also agree that responses and rebuttals should be kept short, but it simply is a totally different case scenario when referring to debate. See, now anyone can make a huge speech, and respond to it with a few casual lines, but in a debate, when you are expected to argue each and every single little point, it much different, and more un-likely to do.
I would also like to point out the hypocrisy of this argument seeing as my opponents own debating style is to use as many conflicting words, and complicated sentences as possible.

And last, my opponent concludes this argument by saying that this problem may be easily fixed, by simply lengthening debate argument space (aka characters). However I don't possibly see how this can be a solution, seeing as the instigator can just as easily fill up that max space as well with arguments.

=============
No Good Reasons
=============

1. Loss of Readers

My opponent seems to think that I am the only one who holds the opinion, that long heated debates are interesting. This however, is most un-backed. I, and I am sure many other, love to read heated intense debates. Those who are simply to lazy too read more than a third round, in the long run, really have no bearing on the debate world.
My opponent says a cursory look would affirm that my point is in-correct, yet, when one looks in the comments sections of debate they can find things such as RFD's and personal opinions on the out-come of the said debate.

2. Loss of Genuine Votes

I think the assumption that people vote biasedly would be mildly in-accurate. I could actually prove to you by showing you several debates where individuals have voted according to the debate itself rather than their previous thought of the resolution. A simple look at comments, can prove all of these.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

These are only a few examples, of many. But the simple point is that most people look at the quality of the debate, rather than just vote their opinion. Granted their are some individuals who may do this, but their actions shouldn't be taken into account from the whole.

3. Unfair tactic

In answer to my opponents question, yes I do understand that. What I don't understand is the problem with that.
Now the chances of someone actually using that many characters, are very slim, however if someone still did decide to ridiculously use all that space for argumentation, then the same situation would still apply!
Now whether an opponent chooses to respond to a lengthy response as such is there own personal decision, but they took up that responsibility, upon acceptance of the debate, did they not?

It is for all these reasons I have provided, that it is most logical to release the character max limitation.
thankyou
-Philosophical
InquireTruth

Pro

===============
Not Enough Space
===============

Now excuse my forthcoming brevity, but since I feel like we are now stepping on well-worn ground, I think my case can be wrapped up concisely.

It has become abundantly clear that my opponent is not quite sure what my analogy was for. It was not to show that he is against limits in general, but that his criticism against character limits is inherently unreasonable.

If the limit on characters is too small, it does not stand to reason that character limits should be entirely eliminated. Instead there should be a reasonable increase in the maximum characters allotted to allow for the natural progression of wholesome debate.

===============
Limits Creativity
===============

My opponent has offered no real rebuttal to my claim that brevity fosters creativity. Instead he believes that creativity is contingent upon the length of one's argument – this is balderdash! Arguments need not be long in order to be creative.

===============
No Good Reasons
===============

1. Loss of readers
Since I'm sure people desire that their work actually be read (and honestly critiqued) it is a particularly pertinent fact that longer debates are verifiably less read.

2. Loss of genuine votes
My opponent's examples are irrelevant as they do not fit the criteria specified. Long debates receive less genuine votes. Now imagine a debate with 5 rounds of 30,000 characters each! Heated? Probably. Popular? Hardly.

3. Unfair Tactic
I'll let this point stand as it is. I do not believe my opponent's response is either good or convincing.

Thank You,
InquireTruth
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
While I am choosing not to vote for this particular debate, I don't see how sarcasm can be automatically equated to an ad hominem attack. Sarcasm, specifically, is merely caustic or biting wit, but is not necessarily attached to a given purpose 100% of the time. I may be sarcastic about a subject in a given debate without attacking the debater, for instance. It seems to me that claiming sarcasm is always an insult is like saying "I don't understand what you just said, so I take it as fighting words."
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Yet even more proof of your theory of people not reading debates before voting. WW what would lead the pro for conduct points?
Posted by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
args to pro

grammer tied

conduct pro
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Using sarcasm can very vell be interpreted as insulting the opponent. Thus, insults.
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
I didn't use insults...
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Also notice while voting who DID NOT use sarcasm or insults.
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
Let me say that better: the statement was an example of its meaning.
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
Your deduction was indeed correct! The meaning of my statement was actually an example of its meaning too.
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
I do have to ask InquireTruth apart from your slightly humorous introduction as I have deduced it you seem to be almost using a sarcasm to make your opponent look right I mean the phrase
"If there were no character limit it would allow those of a lesser intellectual caliber to camouflage their intellectual poverty with circumlocution and grandiloquent nothings – meaning lost in the obscurity of jargon."
seems to be a bit of an oxymoron however this could just be my interpretation regardless you seem pretty awesome so am I adding you as friend
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
In my opinion, removing the character limit altogether is ridiculous. Pro wins argument vote easy just with that one alone.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JoshNiggli 7 years ago
JoshNiggli
philosphicalInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
philosphicalInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
philosphicalInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by debatingturtle 7 years ago
debatingturtle
philosphicalInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Procrastarian 7 years ago
Procrastarian
philosphicalInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by BellumQuodPacis 7 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
philosphicalInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by branden333 7 years ago
branden333
philosphicalInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
philosphicalInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
philosphicalInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
philosphicalInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04