The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

DDO Should Allow Unlimited Characters in Debates

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,291 times Debate No: 63194
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (5)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Unlimited character: ability to post anywhere from one character to the power of an omnipotent being (in other words, infinity)
Round one acceptance.
DDO: Debate.org
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

This is based off a similar debate from Edeb8, a debate site with this particular feature mentioned within this debate that isn't on DDO. I will now defend this particular feature.


1. Better Voting

The admin of the website can justify this. Edeb8 has people judge your voting score, and as found by the admin, voting score is somehow actually better in these unlimited-character debates than limited-character debates. As posted from a screen shot below, admin says...

(If you can't see it, click here: http://www.debate.org.... The quote says "On average....debates with unlimited characters have an average vote rating of 4.2, which is between exceptional and constructive. Debates with limited characters have less than this, having only an average vote rating of 3.76."

This actually makes sense. People nowadays are even complaining about 10,000 characters. Why only go as far as 10,000 characters? Go unlimited. You can express your ideas in a clearer way and be able to justify your arguments better with unlimited. With unlimited, you don't have to worry about going over the limit and be able to have better arguments and reveal the true debater inside you.

2. Realism stimulation
See video for example of live debate.


As you can clearly see, people have the ability to speak as much as they can, but in a limited amount of time. Similarly, in online debates, we should have a similar environment to real life to produce a more realistic debate and have a better debating experience. People will still have limited time to research, it is not as if they can post 1 billion sources in merely 3 days; they will still be limited to how much they can type. Therefore the initial challenge of choosing your words carefully still remains, only not as strict as before, and more closer to the experience of real-life debating.

3. More concentration on material

Within unlimited characters, you can now focus on organizing your arguments. You can now analyze them further more than ever before. You aren't concerned about which little arguments you have to delete and be forced to only go for the most important arguments. Now we can truly see how much good arguments--no matter how small--in addition to the big important arguments the opponents can bring forward. Even if one man posts 10 arguments compared to another's 3 arguments, those 3 may be far more important and the debaters will gain more skill by learning what are the truly important arguments in contrast to the little, not helping-much arguments. Both limited and unlimited can help increase the debater's skill within noticing the small errors compared to the big errors, but unlimited offers the greater challenge within the ability to not just include the big arguments but the little arguments along as well.

In conclusion....unlimited characters are cool and offer something new, some spice to the good old formula. There is a reason the admin/Larztheloser chose to include it on his site. DDO should include unlimited characters as well.
Onto you, Fuzzy.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Thanks, 9spaceking.

---

Clarification of debate:

Con can defend any number of characters as a limit for debates as long as it is finite, because the inverse of "DDO Should Allow Unlimited Characters in Debates" is "DDO Should Not Allow Unlimited Characters in Debates". This means that any non-infinite character limit is Con ground.

---

CON CONTENTION 1

Unlimited debates allow the ultimate Gish-Galloping. If I had a debate and thought that I was losing, I could simply copy-paste an infinite number of arguments from the Internet that vaguely relate to the topic. It would be impossible for the opponent to respond to all of said arguments. Or I could use a random-essay generation site, such as http://www.elsewhere.org..., and post infinite essays. It would be impossible to read, much less comprehend or respond to an infinitely long argument, making it possible to royally screw over debates that could have been good.

If Pro proposes that people would be voted down for such action, then Pro is supporting a reason to simply have limited character debates - because you don't need to rely on people to vote down bad behavior when you make it impossible, which means that Con gets more of this advantage.

CON CONTENTION 2

Limited character debates increase focus on concision and clarity, which are very important in the real world. Nobody cares about your idea if it take half an hour to explain when it should take a minute. Because limited character debates force debaters to make their arguments concise and yet still make sense, limited character debates increase real-world benefits of debating.

CON REBUTTALS

Pro Contention 1: Higher average voting scores

Pro states that debates with unlimited characters generally have higher voting scores than do debates with limited characters. However, we have no breakdown of the evidence whatsoever. It's entirely possible that, like here, very low-character limit debates are low-quality and bring down the average of limited character. Without knowing the methodology of this study, we have no idea whether 10,000 character debates, or the current DDO maximum, would have scores of 4.99 or 0.01. Hence, disregard this evidence as proof of the better nature of unlimited character debates.

Furthermore, just because people believe these debates to be better doesn't mean that they're objectively better.

Pro Contention 2: More realistic

Actually, limited-character debates are far more realistic. As even Pro notes, no speech has endless time, and people can only talk at limited words per minute. Limited character debates best mimic this. While unlimited character debates may allow for more detail, limited character debates force people to master the skills of producing concise arguments and finding the most important points of an argument, rather than prattling on endlessly on each point. This turns Contention 2, because limited-character debates maximize real-world benefit.

Pro Contention 3: Less focus on argument length

While allowing for more detail is good, this can be achieved through larger character limits, not infinite character limits. Furthermore, it's clear that 10,000 characters allows for plenty of small and large arguments, as evidenced by some of the best debates on the site. (For example, http://www.debate.org...) So the benefit gained from infinitely large debates

Furthermore, as pointed out earlier, forcing debaters to make their arguments concise is better, because it is more realistic and educational.

Furthermore, as touched on earlier, forcing debaters to focus on more important arguments aids real-world education (because most of the things that people say are absolutely pointless, and sifting out the pointed ones is a skill) and reduces incentives to Gish-Gallop.

---

CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN

If you don't buy my arguments above, I propose a counterplan.

As an alternative to the affirmative's "Unlimited Characters" plan, I propose instead a "83,215,642 Characters Limit" plan.

The fastest speaker in the world speaks at 637 words per minute [1]. But let's assume that the average DDO user speaks twice as fast as the world champion, and clocks in at 1274 words per minute. This is ridiculously fast.

The average word in the English language has 5.1 characters [2], and 1 following space, for a total of 6.1 characters. But let's assume that the average DDO user is twice as eloquent as the average English speaker, and clocks in at an average of 11.2 characters. This is ridiculously eloquent.

The longest filibuster in Congress was 24 hours and 18 minutes, or 1458 minutes, long. But let's assume that the average DDO user speaks for twice as long as the longest Senatorial filibuster, and clocks in at 2916 minutes. This is ridiculously lengthy.

So let's say that the average DDO debate is the equivalent of speaking words of average length 11.2 characters at 1274 words per minute, or 14268.8 characters per minute, for 2916 minutes, for a total of 41,607,820.8 characters. And let's say that the the most exceptional DDO users are twice as long-winded as their peers and would prefer 83,215,641.6 character debates.

Hence, the preferred maximum number of characters would be 83,215,642 characters, because this accurately reflects peak human ability.

CON CONDITIONAL-COUNTERPLAN CONTENTION 1:

Limiting the number of characters

CONDITIONAL REBUTTALS

Pro Contention 1: Higher average voting scores

As far as I can tell, no debate on the website mentioned by Pro has over 83,215,642 characters. The fact that most "unlimited" debates can actually fit within Con advocacy provides a reason to vote Con.

Pro Contention 2: More realistic

Nobody can speak infinitely. All people die, and so will the universe. But speaking 83,215,642 characters is easy. Hence, 83,215,642 characters is more realistic (or less unrealistic, really) than infinite characters.

Pro Contention 3: Less focus on argument length

See Con's rebuttal to Pro's contention 1. Effectively all debates will fit within 83,215,642 characters, meaning that Con gets all of Pro's benefits.

---

PRO'S SIDE IS IMPOSSIBLE

It's impossible to have an actual infinite [4]. Hence, all debates will have limited characters. Hence, there can never be Pro ground, because it's always possible for Con to defend that finite character limit as justified.

---

VOTE CON

Not only are DDO's limited character debates better than infinite characters, but Con obtains all of Pro's benefits for supposedly "infinite" character debates.

---
REFERENCES

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.wolframalpha.com...
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[4] www.reasonablefaith.org/forming-an-actual-infinite-by-successive-addition
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

Unlimited Gish Gallop:
First of all, Gish Gallops alone are very mean. Not to meantion within unlimited debates, you can take Gish Galloping to a new level. Thus, with so much Gish Galloping, this should lead to warnings to banning. People wouldn't be allowed to do so much Gish Gallops because of the risk involved. Not only so, Gish Gallops are easily to spot and they have a common errors most time, as such a fallacy (Because Gish Gallops are most often lies or half-lies, or straw-mans.) [1], so they can easily be countered with just a few sentences.

Conclusion and Clarity:
This makes no sense. There is a double limit online, both limit in character and time. In real life there is only a limit to time. Do people go ahead to make one gazillion gish gallops in a live debate just because they can technically talk insanely fast and manage to be able to do those gazillion gish gallops? Of course not. They are wasting time, and time is a crucial factor. Indeed, I agree that you can babble more than usual within an unlimited character debate, but the opponent and the judges can simply skip over it due to its irrelevancy, and you still have to be concise in order to make all your arguments within the limited amount of time. Just because you have unlimited characters does not mean you can type up infinity arguments, because you only have limited amount of time to type up everything.

Higher average voting score:
"Furthermore, just because people believe these debates to be better doesn't mean that they're objectively better."
Actually they are better. The voters can vote better within these unlimited-character debates because the evidence suggests that they understand the debate further than a limited-character debate. With unlimited characters you can truly experiment and learn how to truly word your argument and clarify your true meaning within the debate and reveal your true diction and vocabulary.

More realistic:
Once more, I stress on the fact that people cannot prat on endlessly on each point. Some people can only contribute so much time to the debate. With unlimited characters, debates will be more similar to real life debates. Similar to real-life debates, you can only type so much in the limited time. Limited character is too much of a challenge, and people cannot express themselves very clearly, explaining why the voting score on unlimited character debates on Edeb8 is higher.

My opponent's ridiculous counter-plan
My opponent tries talking about an "Exactly 83,215,642 Characters Limit" plan. What is this? This is absolutely ridiculous. It looks very troll but nevertheless I will rebut this in a very serious manner. Or at least, as serious as I can manage. First of all, why exactly that number? Why not one more? Why not one less? There is absolutely no point in having EXACTLY 83 million 215 hundred thousand and 642 characters. This does not follow the pattern of the character limit options--500, 750, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8,000, 9,000, and 10,000. As you can see they are all multiples of 10 as well as 50. That exact character limit my character poses looks ridiculous in comparison to these other numbers and looks out of place. It does not work well.

Re-rebuttals with the ridiculous counter-plan
1. H.A.V.S.
Once again, this character limit looks ridiculous and out of place. It will not work. "Unlimited characters" looks so much neater and nicer than "83,215,642 characters".

2. Realistic
My opponent admits that speaking his ridiculous amount is easy. Therefore infering that some people will actually not have a big problem reaching that part or even broadening over the part. What if people want more than that much characters? Then obviously that much amount is not enough. Only unlimited can guarantee that everyone has enough to say.

3. L.F. on A.L.
My opponent is incorrect. 82,215,642 characters does not recieve the same benefits of my case. I mentioned above in my rebuttals its benefits that unlimited character has that which the massive amount my opponent claims does not have.

My side is impossible?
I agree, there is no actual "infinite", but the limit isn't "infinite characters", the limit is "unlimited characters". This means that the debate can have as much characters and solid arguments as the debaters can type up. I have shown that without the limit of characters, unlimited characters has many positive benefits.

IN CONCLUSION
My opponent's rebuttals hold no ground and are refuted. His counter-plan is too troll to really work out compared to unlimited characters.
There's a reason Larz chose to include the unlimited characters option on his website.
VOTE PRO.

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Thanks, 9spaceking.

---

CON CONTENTION 1: GISH GALLOPING
Pro: "Gish Galloping ... should lead to warnings to banning." I have already countered this. It is better to prevent any level of Gish Galloping, which limiting the length of debates does. Allowing unlimited character debates, however, relies on voters and/or moderators to correctly punish Gish Galloping, which may fail. Thus, Pro allows more of a bad practice than Con.

Pro: "Gish Gallops are easily [sic] to spot and ... have a common errors ... lies ... or straw-mans ... so they can easily be countered with just a few sentences." This is unrealistic. Responding to almost any claim usually requires a comparable amount of time. Because Gish Gallops are composed of many claims, all of which must be responded to, Gish Gallops cannot easily be refuted.

CON CONTENTION 2: REALISM
Pro: "There is a double limit online, both limit in character and time. In real life there is only a limit to time." In real life there is a very real character limit, imposed due to limits in speaking speed and listening speed of listeners.

Pro: "[Y]ou can babble more ... within an unlimited character debate, but the opponent and the judges can simply skip over it[.]" People can only skip over the babbling nonsense if they know that it is babbling nonsense, which means that they must first read the babbling nonsense in order to tell if it is nonsense.

Pro: "[Y]ou still have to be concise ... to make all your arguments within the limited amount of time. Just because you have unlimited characters does not mean you can type up infinity arguments, because ... limited ... time[.]" Why must people be concise? There's usually more than enough time to write a response to an argument, meaning that concision is not guaranteed. Furthermore, it's possible for someone to say "As John Smith states:" and quote other writers on the matter, quickly allowing their argument to explode to the size of multiple peer-reviewed papers. Furthermore, there are many random-essay generators on the internet. It's entirely possible for someone to use such essays as filler that the opponent must respond to. Furthermore, if somebody frequently debates on a certain topic, they may have pre- written responses, which could be multiple pages in length, because they have effectively infinite time.

PRO CONTENTION 1: HIGHER AVERAGE VOTING SCORES
Pro does not respond to my first point on this issue, which points out 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.

Pro: "The voters can vote better within ... unlimited-character debates because ... they understand the debate further than a limited-character debate." This is not in Pro's evidence, which merely states that voters give higher scores to unlimited character debates, not that they actually understood it more.

PRO CONTENTION 2: MORE REALISTIC
See "CON CONTENTION 2: REALISM".

PRO CONTENTION 3: LESS FOCUS ON ARGUMENT LENGTH
See "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 did not respond to my point that forcing debaters to focus on more important arguments aids real-world education

---

CONDITIONAL CON COUNTERPLAN
Pro: "[A]n "Exactly 83,215,642 Characters Limit" plan ... is absolutely ridiculous. It looks very troll[.] First of all, why exactly that number?" As pointed out, this is derived from the world champion speaking speed, the average word length, and the world champion filibuster length, and multiplying the aforementioned by 16. Thus, this plan has a very good reason to be so exact.

Pro: "This does not follow the pattern ... 500, 750, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8,000, 9,000, and 10,000." Simply because this plan does not fit the pattern does not mean that it is bad. Pro provides no reasons why we must follow DDO's "pattern" of character limits. Why not change the pattern?

CONDITIONAL REBUTTAL TO PRO CONTENTION 1: HIGHER AVERAGE VOTING SCORES
Pro 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.

CONDITIONAL REBUTTAL TO PRO CONTENTION 2: MORE REALISTIC
Pro: "What if people want more than that much characters? .... Only unlimited can guarantee that everyone has enough to say." 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 LENGTH
Pro: "[B]enefits that unlimited character has ... which the massive amount my opponent claims does not have." See responses in CONDITIONAL REBUTTAL TO PRO CONTENTION 2: MORE REALISTIC and CON CONTENTION 2: REALISM.

---

Pro: "[T]here is no actual "infinite"[.] ... This means that the debate can have as much characters and solid arguments as the debaters can type[.]" 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:

Sources: Clear Con win. Pro has 2 sources. Con has 6 sources.

Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

Gish Galloping
I understand that within unlimited character debates, you can be able to do Gish Galloping. However, people will waste precious time, and not only so, risk their ban within their Galloping on and on. Because of the introduction of unlimited characters, I contend that additional moderators be added, such as maybe Larz (who introduced this concept in the first place), or Whiteflame (one of the best voters on the site, he could easily spot out such massive Gish Galloping as mentioned by the opponent"

My opponent tries talking about how Gish Gallops' responses are unrealistic. This is untrue. Let's take a look at a Gish Gallop in one of my lost debates.
From: http://www.debate.org...

52 reasons why Sswdwm cannot win this debate
1. he only has a 62.50% win percentage

2. his name is really really weird. No offense dude.

3. Sswdwm's name is really really hard to type up. No offense.

4. his elo is at an measly 2,105

5. there are debaters at 8000!!

6. it can be concluded from 4 and 5 that he's not that good of a debater

7. no one whom has forfeited even one round has won against me

8. 9spaceking requires much effort to win against, as can be seen fromhttp://www.debate.org......

9. 9spaceking is serious on this debate.

10. 9spaceking agrees on this topic

11. 9spaceking has technically only lost 2 debates where he was serious and agreed on his side of the topic

12. thus, sswdwm cannot win because of 9, 10 and 11

13. his profile pic. is hard to see

14. he is interested in women
15. he isn’t gay
16. gay is essentially not wrong
17. sswdwm is wrong
18. wrong=false
19. sswdwm has made false claims in round 1
20. sswdwm will not win because of his false information
21. 9spaceking has made no grammar mistakes (because he pointed them out and he is false)
22. everything is awesome! Everything is good when you’re part of a team!
23. sswdwm’s username does not contain any letter from “Everything”
24. sswdwm is a person, not everything
25. sswdwm is not awesome. No offense.
26. sswdwm is not part of a team, as far as I’m concerned.
27. sswdwm isn’t good. No offense.
28. sswdwm uses Wikipedia.
29. Wikipedia is not a credible source.
30. that means sswdwm is only 9/10 credible.
31. GCL’s debate has been explained.
32. RT9119’s debate has been explained.
33. sswdwm is now only 7/10 credible.
34. 7/10 is a “C minus”
35. C minus will get you to no good college
36. sswdwm’s argument won’t even get him into a good college
37. sswdwm has not been in a good college
38. sswdwm has bad education
39. I go to TJHSST
40. TJHSST is the best school (sometimes second best) of US
41. I have awesome grades at TJHSST
42. I currently have an awesome education
43. awesome education>bad education
44. I will win over sswdwm
45. sswdwm likes badminton
46. badminton is my 2cd favorite sport
47. therefore sswdwm is only 2cd best to me
48. sswdwm doesn’t support a president
49. sswdwm therefore doesn’t support a democracy
50. sswdwm is therefore horrible. No offense intended.
51. nobody votes for horrible people
52. back to you! Oh wait, you can’t rebut back! Muhahahahaha!

Now, let me easily rebut all these 52 points easily.
-Opponent offers no assertion to back up 1-5. (Why does a bad win ratio and a low elo make him a bad debater?)
-Just because opponent has never lost a debate with a forfeit does not mean sswdwm won't win this
-9, 10 and 11 have no backup....again, why will sswdwm in particular lose? He hasn't lost before.
-Opponent offers no assertion from 13-18
-Nothing to back up 19-27 (sswdwm has no letter from "Everything", and he isn't "everything", therefore he will lose/isn't good? What kind of lame logic is that?)
-No evidenct to back up 39-40, nor anything to support that just because sswdwm has 70% accuracy he has the same grade in school
-45-47 make no sense.
-48-51, the leap of logic here makes no sense.

As you can see the amount of text/arguments needed to rebut Gish Gallops are far easier to create than the Galloping themselves. Keep in mind, that, with huge lack of logic, these galloping points can be easily taken as free conduct point. And who wants their opponents to have free conduct point? Definitely not me... (oh wait how ironic XD, let's pretend that never happened)

Indeed, and online there is also the limit of how much one can type up and how much people can read. Judges can only give so much time to read the arguments in the limited amount of voting period, so this encourages the people debating to try to make it so that their arguments are more readable.

The babbling nonsense only weakens the case.

As for the people's quotes, the debaters must still back up these quotes, otherwise they're just fallicious appeals to authority. As for random-essay generators, these can only effectively work for one round, then the debater who orignally copied the essay now has to make up his own responses and back up the essay. Which means he has to read the insanely long essay, cry his tears out, and burn his hand on a stove (figuratively) to find out effective sources that back up the essay.

As for the higher average voting score, well, the best he could do was view unlimited verses limited. In addition, since the votes were better, those who voted the good scores on the votes must have thought it a better vote. And what do better votes come from? More information in the debate, and more clear expression within the debate can inevitably lead to better voting. Thus, if we apply unlimited characters to debate.org, the votes might not be as biased!

"forcing debaters to focus on more important arguments aids real-world education..."
Exactly. Even with unlimited characters debaters still have to focus on important arguments. They cannot dawdle and waste time elaborating a single evidence even though they can go on and on about one single argument. As for the counterplan, the plan is ridiculous. Once again, there is no reason to change the pattern. The character limits all look nice and dandy, and suddenly you see "83,215, 642 limit". The moderators would not like this because it is hard to type up, does not look neat and good compared to those other nice numbers, and is completely weird. And in addition, my opponent's own point counters this. If I can generate a massive essay, then surely I can surpass 82 million?
There has been no evidence that the massive 82 million limit creates better voting scores. Maybe people won't even use that 82 million, because the number looks awry and ridiculous.

As for my side being impossible, I am not contending for infinity characters. How much must I say this--I am only contending for an option to rid of the limited character rule so that people can express themselves better, have better voting scores, still concentrate, and have a more flexible option. It is because infinity being impossible to reach that people have flexibility and can finally display their full skills.

IN CONCLUSION
After the moderators read this debate, they may change their mind, they may not. Maybe they'll even add a 20,000 character option to soften and satisfy those who are restricted by merely 10,000 characters. But they'll definitely not accept the 82 million characters; that is just weird and does not work out, as well as contradictory to my opponent's arguments. Regardless of whether the moderators chose to apply this option that gives more freedom to debaters as well as realism, I still stand by the resolution and think that DDO should adopt Edeb8's option for.... unlimited characters.
VOTE ME.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Thanks, 9spaceking.

---

CON CONTENTION 1: GISH GALLOPING

Pro 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: REALISM

Pro 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 SCORES
Pro 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 REALISTIC
See "CON CONTENTION 2: REALISM".

PRO CONTENTION 3: LESS FOCUS ON ARGUMENT LENGTH
See "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 COUNTERPLAN
Pro 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 SCORES
Pro 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 REALISTIC
Pro 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 LENGTH
Pro 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.

Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
sorry mate.

i wanted a tie :(
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
if only I didn't think his counter-plan so ridiculous... *cries
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
Not sure that I like the fact that the tiebreaking point was a conduct point, but thats just me.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
this has got to be the closest debate I've ever had that wasn't tied.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Yeh, I'll just refrain from voting. You got plenty of votes on here already. I'm not sure how I would vote, but I don't give much if any weight to the CP because infinite and millions of words is essentially the same thing as well as other reasons directly relevant to my voting style. I was surprised to not see anything come up about how much data storage something like that would require as well.

After seeing a bunch of 10'000 word debates, it is starting to seem excessive. I don't think I've seen a 10'000 word argument that couldn't be condensed to 8'000 words and still get the same points across.

I can't really say the same thing about the leap of 8000 to 5000. Sadly I can foresee the day where they add 12'000 words as an option.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Interesting premise, I have too much schoolwork to focus on to read and give everything the proper consideration before the voting period ends... Reading the first two rounds, I started opposed to it, pro converted me (not to say I would want to read an unlimited length argument, but if an often abused 10,000 limit is allowed why not even higher?). However con pointed out such dangers as Gish Gallops, the lack of credibility on the study in favor of it, and streams of plagiarism we already suffer being able to go on so long that they drive away readers. Pro likely had some good replies in the next round, but that's where I cut off to resume homework... The idea has merit, but certainly drawbacks as well.

One thing I will say, it is reminds me of a very old suggestion of mine, to allow the debaters (if both sides consent) to extend the number of rounds when the debate is ongoing.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
....max wallace seriously? Con doesn't even mention gospels.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
well...tying against Fuzzy (again) ain't bad...it just shows my amazing skills and my under-rated-ness. Now I really need to get 2150 elo to prove my worthy.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Hey I'm on my phone that ain't bad
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
yeah yeah you were 17 seconds too late
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
9spacekingFuzzyCatPotatoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I think con's point about the potential for time wasting Gish Galloping and his point that we do not need an unlimited character limit since no debate will eve require an infinite amount of characters carry the day. A ridiculously high character limit still reduces the potential for gishing better than an unlimited limit, and I don't think pro adequately rebutted con's hypothetical counter plan. He didn't really rebut the utility of it, only the ridiculousness the number. But the principal that a finite high limit is better than no limit is never really dealt with effectively.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
9spacekingFuzzyCatPotatoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments are straightforward here - Con dominates this debate. I don't think he needed the counterplan here, as that just opens him up to committing the same harms, but I don't get the responses to Con's arguments that I need to give him the win here. I think it could be argued that Gish-Gallop isn't a problem, but Pro doesn't do that, and Con proves that Gish-Gallop is only possible in Pro's case (though it's not necessarily true). I buy that there's less focus and clarity. I buy that it's more realistic to stick with character limits. Perhaps Pro is right about judging scores, but he never warrants it well enough to win that point, nor does he explain any reason why unlimited characters is better than 80 million, nor is this improvement weighed against the more general harms claimed by Con, so even if he is winning this, it's not a big enough issue to claim the debate. Too many of Pro's arguments go dropped, and I can do little else but vote Con.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
9spacekingFuzzyCatPotatoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: There is good and bad with unlimited characters; and there is good and bad with limited characters. MCA to Pro, for presenting an edge to unlimited that Con didn't do with limited.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
9spacekingFuzzyCatPotatoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Very close debate. Con almost convinced me, but I realized he is essentially advocating what Pro is. Both sides want the ability to not reach the limit of words. Con just made his limit unreachable. Pro had a good point of the double limit, and I think random word wax could be limited by time. I gave conduct to Con because Pro could have spoken a little bit more respectfully about the counter-plan.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
9spacekingFuzzyCatPotatoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.