The Instigator
Zealous1
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Scyrone
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Debate.org should add higher post character options

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Zealous1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 972 times Debate No: 15323
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Zealous1

Pro

First off, I thank my contender for accepting this debate.

I believe debate.org should allow 9k, 10k, 11k, 12k, 13k, and 14k post character amounts. Rules will be like policy.

Advantages to having more flexibility and increased character amounts:

1. Greater competition

This is simple. Because more writing is allowed, those who like to write a lot can write more. This creates greater competition.

2. More points.

It allows for more points to be packed into each debate. This is good because it (1) increases competition even more and (2) Increases education because there is more brainstorming and you learn about even more points against your position.

3. Less clarification required

Sometimes when there are many points in a round and you're scrambling to get your post in (and deleting blocks of text to do so), your points become unclear. This means:

(1) you have to clarify to your opponent in the next round
(2) If you don't clarify, your voters and opponent will be confused.

It makes for more of those debates where your opponent misinterprets your arguments and hits down their own version of your arguments, then you have to go back and show them that they got it wrong.

This also increases education because less time is spent clarifying, and more time is spent actually debating.

Another impact of this is more accurate voting. If you have more characters to actually explain yourself, you ensure the voters don't completely miss what you meant by that point.

What is good about this is that it increases flexibility and it's up to the instigator to set the character limit high or not.

Thank you, and I eagerly await Con's response.
Scyrone

Con

"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.
Debate Round No. 1
Zealous1

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate.


First, I'd like to point out all the points that my opponent has dropped completely.


2. More points


3. Less clarification (All my opponent stated was that you don't need very much time to explain things. I will get to that in a moment)


He also dropped education, which is a major point in this round.


Because I set the rules to "Policy" in the first round, any dropped points flow to the opponent of the person who dropped them, and they may not be addressed by the person who dropped them.


If Con addresses these points, I would ask that you mark him down in your vote.


Moving on to his points:


Con essentially only brought up two points and combatted competition. I would ask that he would outline his points a little better so I do not need to quote all of his sentences, but for now that's what I must do.


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.



My opponent is referring to a debate where not many points are brought up and not much explanation is needed.



1. There are some issues where you could bring up hundreds of arguments. The problem is that there is obviously not enough space to create and explain them all.



2. Under each argument there may be several responses, such as what I am doing right now. Many times I have three or more responses to each point. Sometimes you have several responses to each response. 8,000 characters isn't enough to accomodate all these responses and their explanations.



3. Some points are hard to understand and need adequate explanation. Points that consist of a series of links, for example, are large and usurp many characters.



Although when possible simple explanations may be good, it is not always possible. That is why we need an option for more characters.



"Running away from a topic while being a part of a debate will show inadequacy."



Yes, it does show inadequacy. But that just shows that if the competitor wants to win, he/she will not stray from the topic in an explanation. I have never personally seen a debate where they're supposed to be discussing nuclear weapons and they start talking about the orphans in Russia. It is hard to get led off in such a tangent.



"Is it a limited amount of characters? Quite."



My opponent just conceded that it is limited.



But if we had many characters to go upon, then would debate truly be occurring?



Yes. Watch a speed debate, then watch a policy debate. In speed debate, they're speaking so many points and so much evidence. Yet they don't stray from the topic. In policy debate, the speaking time might seem okay at first, but then you realize how much more you could be saying.



Speed debate is a debate, even though many words are spoken. This argument does not at all stand.



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?



(1) In debate.org, generally people are more willing to read. They know they might have to read an 8k character post and respond to everything.

(2) It’s not like it’s mandatory to have such a large character limit. It’s the choice of the instigator. If the instigator wants to take the risk of having to wait longer since no one wants to debate with that character limit, then let it be so. It’s just increasing flexibility.

(3) I have never seen TL;DR used on debate.org.



“Referencing from before, length does not mean more competition or better qualification.



Again, clarification. If you don’t understand a point, how can you adequately combat it? You can’t. It’s up to the instigator. Therefore greater clarification means more words in competition and less having to say “what I meant by that is…”



then people will start to go off on a tangent rather than actually debate a single subject.



People tend to actually write less than they need on debate.org. They don’t start going off on different topics. How often do you see someone actually use the 8,000 character limit? If they don’t need to, they won’t. They’re not trying to fill up the space with as many characters as possible to look smart. If need be, the amount of text might be the same as a regular 8,000 character debate.



“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.



I beg to differ. In debate, you don’t want your voter (or judge) to be making their own conclusions. You have to make the conclusions for them. The reason is that the less you explain your point and massage it in a voter’s brain, the more personal bias comes in. If you don’t adequately explain and use your point, the voters will insert bias and quite possibly choose the opponent for best argument.



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.



Voters aren’t forced to vote on a debate that long. The instigator chooses to take the risk of less votes (which isn’t much of a risk frankly) and the contender agrees with this. It’s a matter of choice.



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



What did Con use Gothic Bold pt. 20!? With the font size on debate.org, it only takes 7 pages, and that’s with paragraph form.



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.



I have heard this term “The rules of debate” from my opponent several times. I have no idea what he is trying to prove or why he’s mentioning the “rules of debate”.



All in all, my opponent has only combated one of my points and completely dropped others. He brought up basically two points. I would ask that Con would provide a better outline for his flow of ideas so that it is easier to follow.



Because Con dropped



2. More points

3. Less clarification (sort of)



And most importantly education, I would ask that you, as a voter, would vote for Pro simply on the basis of these dropped points. Con may not bring them up again because of the “policy” rules.



Education is the most important purpose of debate.org. Since my opponent conceded this point, that means he agrees that adding higher character limits make for more education.



Con’s points about “getting off topic” are invalid. I have yet to see a debate where people are discussing something completely different from the debate topic. If anything, they will adhere to the least characters possible, which sometimes has to be more than 8,000.



As you’ve noticed, I quote my opponent’s sentences in italics to provide an easier debate to follow. That means a lot of characters are spent on what my opponent has written. Many others have this same habit, and a higher character limit would benefit them and everyone.



Thank you, please vote Pro.

Scyrone

Con

"Because I set the rules to "Policy" in the first round, any dropped points flow to the opponent of the person who dropped them, and they may not be addressed by the person who dropped them."

Yet I did not drop any points. I merely referenced them for future speaking. Also, I specifically do not care what you set the rules to. 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? If not, then notice that I do not have to abide by the rules that you set out. Would it be good if I did? Possibly. But at the same time, when you enter a debate, you must also think that your opponent will not follow through with every thing you say. If we were to merely follow through with every rule you said, then there would be no point to the debate, because I would have to agree with you in order to move on, and then it becomes pointless.

"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."

Misquotations will get you nowhere. If you include the previous collective statements in argument then you will see that this sentence is not meant to stand upon its own. In arguing a specific theory, fact, or way very little explanation is needed within the definition of the basis of your argument. Plus, not once did I say there is not enough space to debate. I even said that there is over 17 pages of a Word Document to debate.

An example of how a lengthier discussion can fit into a small 3 round debate form is a debate I had with someone else 2 years ago:

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

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.

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.

I will address my opponent's concerns:

"There are some issues where you could bring up hundreds of arguments. The problem is that there is obviously not enough space to create and explain them all."

And that is why debate exists. The best arguments must be chosen for the competition. Hundreds of arguments exist for everything. Are you saying we must argue all of them in order for this to be a proper debate? Unlikely, seeing as though many do not argue hundreds of points at all. Look at Socrates; he created a whole method of arguing not based upon talking points, but reverting what your opponent said into a contradiction of himself. Socrates won most of his "debates". Again, length does not quantify something being better.

"Under each argument there may be several responses ... Many times I have three or more responses to each point. Sometimes you have several responses to each response. 8,000 characters isn't enough to accomodate all these responses and their explanations."

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?

"Some points are hard to understand and need adequate explanation. Points that consist of a series of links, for example, are large and usurp many characters."

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.

"Although when possible simple explanations may be good, it is not always possible. That is why we need an option for more characters."

As said before, many difficult debates have been argued under the limit.

"My opponent just conceded that it is limited."

Yes, I have. And I have given my reasons for it being limited. I am not arguing that it is purely not limited (although in many cases it truly isn't). I am mainly arguing that the limit is there and exists for a reason.

"Yes. Watch a speed debate, then watch a policy debate."

The major difference between here and there is that here it is written. If someone reads 500 words per minute, then they will read faster than someone whom does not read as fast. 14,000 character debates with 5 rounds will literally go into 30 pages of microsoft word document. Are you writing for a debate or writing a college exam paper? Debate is meant to be shorter and more competitive.

"If you don't understand a point, how can you adequately combat it? You can't."

I would like to see what debates you have for proof that this has occurred on debate.org?

"People tend to actually write less than they need on debate.org."

And here my opponent shows the reason why I am arguing my point. We do not need more characters because people write less than they need on debate.org.

"What did Con use Gothic Bold pt. 20!? With the font size on debate.org, it only takes 7 pages, and that's with paragraph form."

I used Times New Roman, pt. 12 font. The size on debate.org is the same as a Mircrosoft word document. Because essentially what you are trying to do is compare the sizes of paragraphs and paper on each document. When in reality it has to do with character size. I ask the people of debate.org to go into a word document, type out 8,000 characters, then times that by 5 and see what you get. Times that by 2 and that is how much debating me and my opponent have together to argue.

"I have heard this term "The rules of debate" from my opponent several times. I have no idea what he is trying to prove or why he's mentioning the "rules of debate"."

Competition, Swiftness, and Understanding.

I thought education would be self-evident as seeing as though learning to debate in a smaller environment would do well. It is a great way to obtain wisdom.

"As you've noticed, I quote my opponent's sentences in italics to provide an easier debate to follow."

This is a farce. My opponent has merely done this to show that clarification needs to exist and he can clarify things now. Obviously, my opponent failed to realize that he just argued his points and "clarified" them all under the 8,000 character limit, while also typing two paragraph spaces in between some of his lines. He has purposely wasted space in order to make his argument seem stronger.

"Many others have this same habit, and a higher character limit would benefit them and everyone."

Or, you can learn how to read and respond with your own ingenuity. What my opponent calls on his side "clarification", I call "misinterpretation".
Debate Round No. 2
Zealous1

Pro

"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.

Scyrone

Con

"This is the only spot my opponent actually even mentioned my points...... 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?"

I mentioned both of our points throughout my whole debate. Did I clearly say, "Now here is my next point for you to understand"? No, and that is because I believe people here have the ability to connect the points with what is being said without having to be told what they are. As for logical sense, I do not think you know what you are talking about in that aspect. My not making logical sense implies that I am being illogical. So it is illogical not to follow a format of debate because you said I can't follow it? That is the logical fallacy "argumentum ad potentium". It means you believe that your debate format is unquestionable because you instigated the debate, and now having questioned it myself you have used my questioning as a way to try and prove that I am wrong. That, my friend, does not make logical sense.

Also, this isn't the last round. All throughout your post you say this is the "last round" and "in conclusion". There are 4 rounds in this debate.

Firstly, I would like to reference a quote of my own in the first round:

"if much more space is given, then people will start to go off on a tangent rather than actually debate a single subject."

If we look closely, both of us at the beginning of our debate rounds have talked about something else rather than the topic at hand. For having so much to say about it, you have a good enough space to argue policy debate with me and tell me I make "no logical sense". And actually, the first third of his 3rd round is debating me and response to his, "Voters, you must mark him down in the imaginary points box that says, 'You must follow the instigators exact rules'".

"I simply quoted a specific sentence for the convenience of the voters."

There is a difference between convenience and misquotation. You misquoted because (like I said previous round) you took the sentence by itself and not with all the information before it. Let me show an example: "John Doe said that killing Jews is a good thing". Let us say that I said this. You would be taking it as if I had said, "killing Jews is a good thing." Whereas I was merely showing that someone else said it. The format of the example shows what you are doing. You are taking information and rerouting it to fit your own way of defeating it. In actuality, you have only defeated a portion of the part you misinterpreted.

"my opponent did not refute the fact that it is not over 17 pages, it is only 7"

Everytime I copy your size writing onto Microsoft Word, it is Arial pt. 8 font. I, and also debate.org, use 12 pt. font with Times New Romans. Of course yours is only 7 pages long. Your text is incredibly small. I ask (like I asked before) that the voters go into MSWord, have 12 pt. TNR font, and type in 8,000 characters times 5, and that is how much arguing space one person has in a typical debate. And if you have lower font, then still type in 8,000 characters times 5. Even though the pages will be shorter, the text will be smaller, and this the amount of characters and length are still parallel to my idea.

"1. Maybe my opponent is just good at making his point concise."

I have shown you how to do so as well. If I can do it, then the possibility of others doing so as well are easy.

"2. This debate round did not consist of several responses. Sometimes each response takes a lot of text."

It consisted of several responses. Of course, if my opponent knew what he was talking about, he would've made a number instead of merely saying "several".

"Nine contentions is not necessarily that large. It depends on the contentions."

I agree, it isn't that large, but it's not small either. That is an average amount of contentions for a proper debate.

"Three contentions is barely anything."

Three contentions is a decent amount of contentions. How many do you have in this debate? 5? That is two above my what I had in the other debate.

"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"

Then why don't you define ethics for me? I was merely following the rules of the site. Back then, we were allowed to vote for ourselves. It was pretty standard for everyone to do, because the more votes a debate got, the more views it usually got and more votes would come in. Which back then, when there was the core group of debaters and many random people going in and out, the traffic wasn't steady. I voted for myself. I would be an idiot not to. Why would I vote for my opponent in a competition where I want to win? Being ethical is not merely being right or wrong. Hitler had ethics, just not the ones you had. My ethics in a debate forum are to win because, guess what our objective here is? To win. Of course, this is merely an ad hominem attack on me. "He is wrong because he voted for himself to win." Give me a break :P

"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."

Why is it preferable to bring up as many as possible? Where is the proof? You can't make statements without evidence to back you up, especially when speaking about the general population. Learning to debate will little points and little reference could make someone a formidable philosopher. Other than wisdom, why would anyone be searching for specific knowledge in a debate?

"My opponent is suggesting that since so many people have come, then it's obviously not a problem."

It isn't a problem, and more people have come and debated. I'm not merely saying it. I have been on this site for three years and I remember three years ago. I am saying from personal experience. Just because you lack that personal experience doesn't mean it is a logical fallacy.

"I believe debate.org should allow 9k, 10k, 11k, 12k, 13k, and 14k post character amounts."

"I'm not arguing that it is NECESSARY to add a higher character limit."

So when things get bad for you, just pretend like someone misspoke for you.

"I'm sure they would be glad"

You don't know this. Just because you would be glad doesn't mean others would also.

"but it is not preferential."

Again, you don't know this.

"A reason that doesn't matter."

And yet you debate around the limit.

"Obviously the word count is flawed"

You are using 8pt. font Arial. I am using 12 pt. font TNR. I am not asking YOU to check. I am asking the VOTERS to check. Obviously you wouldn't own up to the truth if it were true.

"Do I sense an insult?"

No, but I believe YOU were the one to say I was an unethical debater. If you break down the sentence, I am saying you have ingenuity, but you should learn how to read and respond to the debates with that ingenuity.

"But, what's the disadvantage to a higher character limit?"

As I have said. To learn to debate in a shorter amount of time with what you have is more competitive and educative than having 14,000 character limits.

"There are the advantages of Education and More points"

No evidence has been provided for this. Merely stating facts are true without providing the facts themselves is illogical.

If we also can quickly notice, my opponent thinks this is the end of the debate. There is still one more round left. I will allow him the three days to gather all the evidence he needs to prove his points correct. Providing facts is key. Merely stating, "this should be so because it would be better" is not an argument.
Debate Round No. 3
Zealous1

Pro

"I mentioned both of our points"

I had more than two. You're just proving you dropped a few.

"Did I clearly say…without having to be told what they are."

How does this tie in to what I said? My opponent keeps going off and saying things that don't make sense.

"That… does not make logical sense."

You're right. You made absolutely no sense. I asked whether it's logical that mentioning a point is rebutting it. It's obviously not logical. You made no attempt to refute it, you just went off on another of your hard to follow tangents.

"Also, this isn't the last round…conclusion"."

My opponent is clearly confused. I was not saying that it is the last round. I said "It's like saying…then waiting till the last round". Not "My opponent waited till the last round". I say in conclusion because I conclude each of my arguments with a summary. Again, my opponent is confused and has been confusing us all during this debate.

"both…not topic at hand."

No. Talking about Policy rules and dropped arguments is part of the debate, not off topic. My opponent is even confused on the definition of "off topic".

Killing Jews

My opponent refused to refute my main point: that all the quoted information is available right above the post. I am merely shortening it for my character limit and the voter's convenience. If I had said "killing Jews is good", it wouldn't have mattered because in Con's post you have the context.

"you have only defeated…the part you misinterpreted."

I defeated your whole point.

Let's look at what I actually said to put this to rest.

"My opponent is referring to a debate where not many points are brought up and not much explanation is needed."
Con had used an example of explaining certain philosophies. I was saying that you do not need much of an explanation for this. I had three responses to his point which still stand, since Con did not at all refute them.

1. Hundreds of arguments

2. Several responses

3. Hard to understand points

Transcendentalism, for example, could be explained as "Any system of philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical and material". Of course, that is rather hard to understand. So you give an example, or use more readable words to get the point across. It takes space. My opponent is saying that you can explain it with less characters, but I argue that it is not preferable.

Font argument
1.Size 12 is rather large
2. Let's not look at pages. Let's look at how much space we need to refute. All of my other arguments stand. It is preferable to have more space in some cases.
3. Let's look at a long, four round debate with 12 point TNR as Con wants it and no whitespace. 8 and a half pages per person. Roughly 2.25 pages per post. Where did my opponent get 17 pages? Was he not counting whitespace characters? Debate.org uses whitespace as characters as well. (Plus most debates are 3 to 2 rounds, not 5 or 4).
4. Summary: you have to quote your opponent and use plenty of whitespace. You don't have 8 pgs. to respond to every argument, you have 8 pgs. to respond to every argument 4 times.

"If I can do it…others…as well"

I should not have used my opponent as an example in the first place. The reason being he usually does not refute my actual responses, but just says something hard to understand and respond to. I always go point by point, but Con does not always. This style of debate is sloppy and hard to follow.

"It consisted of several responses. Of course, if my opponent knew what he was talking about, he would've made a number instead of merely saying "several"."

1.It consisted of ME doing several responses. That is why I am always running out of characters with this restrictive limit.
2.Ad hominem? Secondly, it is purely dumb to call me stupid for saying "several" rather than a specific number. The amount of responses always varies. I can't pin a number on it.

"That is an average amount of contentions"

Ah, but what about a large debate? Voters, the reason I want a higher character limit is not for EVERY debate, but rather the ones that are long and need more space. Even this round is making me run out of characters.

Dishonest voting issue

Just in case Con hasn't noticed, you're no longer allowed to vote for yourself. That's for a good reason. If everyone votes for himself, then the ones that don't will always be losing. Note that his opponent did not vote for himself. "It would have been crazy to vote for my opponent" (paraphrased) Then don't vote at all? It's like doing a competitive team policy round and writing yourself the ballot. No competition. My opponent is clearly unethical.

"Why is it preferable to bring up as many as possible?"

The answer is in my post. Because you learn arguments against your case. As you know, not everyone uses the same arguments against any given case. One opponent might use a certain set of arguments, and another might use a different set. If you go up against an opponent that throws all the arguments at you, then you now know all possible arguments and how to respond to them. It's practice. "Learning to debate with less points could be better" It's the instigator's choice whether he wants a low argument debate or a high argument debate.

"It isn't a problem, and more people have come and debated."

Remember my opponent's attack on misquoting? Con has been responding to only the quotes this whole time. I showed how his argument was a logical fallacy. He made no attempt to refute my reasoning. I encourage you to read what I wrote and see how he did not at all respond to what I said.

"when things get bad…pretend like someone misspoke"

Actually, no. That's what I was saying from the beginning. "Should" does not equal "it is necessary".

"Just because you would be glad..."

1. There are tens of thousands of members on this site. I'm sure at least a few will want more characters. 2. it doesn't affect anyone unless they use the higher character limit. So there's no disadvantage. Voter, do you want to be able to explain yourself more? Even if you don't really want it, you have to agree that since it doesn't affect you unless you choose it, then it makes no sense to vote against it.

Insult

What Con said was untrue. What I said about unethical debating is true. Con's argument that he was saying I have "ingenuity" was mostly interpreted as sarcasm.

"To learn to debate…character limits."

This point barely stands, but I'll still refute it. As I said, it is educational to learn several arguments against your case and how to refute them. It is also educational to know what your opponent means. (Sometimes it is hard to understand Con, for example). Thus, there are two educational aspects of 14,000 characters. Secondly, this 14,000 character limit is not default or mandatory. My opponent is basing all his argument on this misconception. Because you can choose a low character limit and also a high character limit, you get both types of education. Therefore, there is no disadvantage to allowing a higher character limit.

"No evidence…illogical."

First, my opponent hasn't brought up evidence for his own points. Secondly, I don't need evidence. More points: COMPLETELY logical. It's like saying "I have a bigger bag, so I can fit more groceries in." My opponent is trying to say that I need evidence to prove such. Education follows from more points, since you learn more about your case and how to refute arguments against it.

"My opponent thinks this is the end of the debate"

Again, Con can't even read my arguments correctly. No wonder it is hard to understand his responses. Refer back to what I said in the beginning.

"Providing facts is key."

Cross-apply my reply. My opponent is being hypocritical and I don't even need evidence for something purely logical.

(Again I had to use a lot of ellipsis to fit this post in 8k characters)
Scyrone

Con

My points in this the debate:

1. "increasing post counts we will be turning off the idea of debate"

2. "competition will lessen"

3. "ideas will either be grandstanded and ranted upon or put into such a perplexing show that the debate itself would become useless"

4. "lengthening the character count is a useless activity because a different format already exists for his problem"

These quotes are all from the first and second posts of mine. The following is my explanation within the first posts. Are they the entirety of my argument? No, because they are contained within all my posts:

1. "Hundreds of arguments exist for everything. Are you saying we must argue all of them in order for this to be a proper debate? Unlikely, seeing as though many do not argue hundreds of points at all." ~ Post 2

2. "The best arguments must be chosen for the competition. Hundreds of arguments exist for everything. Are you saying we must argue all of them in order for this to be a proper debate?" ~ Post 2

3. "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." ~ Post 1

4. "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." ~ Post 1

I have provided an explanation for my points. My opponent merely rephrases his own points while refuting mine. The burden of proof relies mostly upon him (and when it did not, I gave debates as evidence). He has literally no sources for anything he has brought up. The only source he did bring up was a quotation of my own debate, which he was against.

My opponent has said these things:

"If you don't understand a point, how can you adequately combat it? You can't."

I asked for proof. None was given.

"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."

I asked for proof again. None was given.

"People tend to actually write less than they need on debate.org."

This is conceding my point. My opponent here admits that (whether it is actually true or not) people on debat.org write less than they need. Why would someone who recognizes this want more space to write a debate?

"There are the advantages of Education and More points"

I asked for proof. None was given. No evidence was cited for this.

His response to these?

"My opponent is being hypocritical and I don't even need evidence for something purely logical."

According to my opponent, he is correct and I am wrong because he is logical and I am a hypocrite; yet he provides no evidence for his logic or me being a hypocrite.

"First, my opponent hasn't brought up evidence for his own points. Secondly, I don't need evidence."

I brought up two debates of my own to reference from.

"My opponent is trying to say that I need evidence to prove such. Education follows from more points, since you learn more about your case and how to refute arguments against it."

This can be accomplished without extending the amount of characters though. Like I said 3 times before; less length means that you must learn to pick out the best arguments and work with what you have instead of having the leisure to provide many arguments. And each time I ask my opponent to provide another debate that has this problem, he does not. Instead he cites this debate as too difficult for him to post in because of the limit. Yet he has enough space to complain about it. Why not take out the complaint, and type an argument?

"I have a bigger bag, so I can fit more groceries in."

And if your groceries are bigger than the bag (which is what you are arguing) then they don't fit at all. I am merely saying carry it yourself, instead of relying on a website to give you the bigger bag.

The biggest disadvantage to providing a higher character limit is that is would make people lazy. Not only would people read less of the debate, but the lax of debate space creates an environment that says, "This is not competitive. You are given tons of space to talk about whatever you want. You don't have to stay on point. You can merely go on about whatever you wish." I come here for debates, not a quiet evening for a philosophical or scientific talk.

"I'm sure at least a few will want more characters."

Yet, like always, he provides no evidence of this.

"Even if you don't really want it, you have to agree that since it doesn't affect you unless you choose it, then it makes no sense to vote against it."

I have provided an explanation for this numerous times. See the point previous to the last one.

"Con's argument that he was saying I have "ingenuity" was mostly interpreted as sarcasm."

This is the internet. Words are typed. Sarcasm implies a tone or volume of sorts. You cannot assume that I was sarcastic. I might be crying right now. I might be really happy. I might be so angry that I want to break some glass. Or I might even be having sex. You wouldn't know at all. Just because YOU interpret something a certain way does not mean you are correct.

Definition of "should" from dictionary.com:

"1. simple past tense of shall.
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize."

"Shall" as in "to will it". "Must" as in "to be willed". "Ought" as in "willingly".

"Characters should be extended..."

"Characters must be extended..."

"Just in case Con hasn't noticed, you're no longer allowed to vote for yourself."

But previously I was. I was following the rules specifically to what the site allowed. Now I am unethical for following rules? I thought I was unethical for not following your rules? Why is it that you are contradicting yourself?

"Ah, but what about a large debate? Voters, the reason I want a higher character limit is not for EVERY debate, but rather the ones that are long and need more space."

Which you have yet to truly show me for the need for it to exist.

"This style of debate is sloppy and hard to follow."

Yet you seem to follow it perfectly. Just because it is hard for you does not mean it is hard for ALL the voters.

"1.Size 12 is rather large"

It's the standard size of all MSWord documents since 1995 :P

" Roughly 2.25 pages per post. Where did my opponent get 17 pages? Was he not counting whitespace characters? Debate.org uses whitespace as characters as well. (Plus most debates are 3 to 2 rounds, not 5 or 4)."

Including whitespace characters, 3.5 pages per post using 12 pt. font TNR. 3.5 * 5 = 18+-

My opponents math is utter failure. 2.25*5

Let's break this down. .25+.25+.25+.25+.25=1.25

2+2+2+2+2=10

1.25+10=11.25

Including whitespace, the character count is NOT 2.25. It is 3.5. Check for yourselves, voters, like I've said all this time. My opponent merely wants you to rely on his calculation. How can you rely on someone whom can't multiply 2.25*5 properly? And even if most debates were 2 or 3 rounds, my suggesting is merely making the rounds larger. If my opponent had included a fifth round, he wouldn't have had to take all the characters out of his posts. He would've had 8,000 free characters. Yet he chose not to.

Vote Con, because of Pro's inability to provide evidence, inability to refute my points, lack of evidence, and lack of definition.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
This debate is a marvelous example of why DDO should not add more characters; namely, because some among us would be tempted to use them. Pro lost me at the beginning of his R2 because he changed to this minuscule font size and kept going on and on and on.

Too long, don't care. I shudder to think what these two might be capable of were there 14k characters rounds available.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
I take debate seriously because it's educational.

And actually, you need to provide a logical reason why my logical is unreasonable. If I just said that it is illogical that computers are good, then you would need me to show why. For example the logical fallacy of "Hasty Generalization". You have to prove why it's illogical to believe that everyone in the world is mean just because they are on earth.

Okay, was the abuse thing supposed to be funny? I missed the laughter in that :D

The debates didn't prove much, lol.

Yes I do too. 2.25 is not simpler than 2, but it's simpler than 2.1 or something. I didn't want to say 2, because that would be dishonest. SO I just gave you some extra leverage by saying 2.25.

Yeah, I love how serious I take it too.
Posted by Scyrone 5 years ago
Scyrone
When I disprove your logic, logic isn't needed to back up something being illogical. They are polar opposites. If something isn't logical, then you can't use logic to back it up :P

I love abusing people, especially 14 y/o kids :P lol

I love debates which never end :) How is 2.25 simpler than 2? lol

My debates were evidence to my own doing :) We were talking about debates, so I showed evidence for debating :P Just because you showed nothing doesn't mean I have to pay for it :P It is up to you to prove the point. It is up to me to refute it. How can I refute something which you refuse to back up? :P

I also love how serious you take this :P "ZOMG! LIFE AND DEATH SITUATION!!!!!! YOUR LOGIC IS NOT LOGIC BECAUSE LOGIC IS ON MY SIDE AND YOU ARE DUMB!" lol
Posted by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
Con looses on conduct for trying to not abide by policy rules when the instigator said "rules will be like policy". The instigator can set up the rules. So, even though conduct sucked on both sides, that goes pro. And, the concessions of huge impacts stand, so it is really over after the 1st round. I especially have no sympathy for con because he wasn't running out of space, which would have been ironic anyway. Con had a mountain to climb over, there isn't any disadvantage really that he could have really argued. Further, I didn't see any good refutation from con. It is so unbelievably easy to signpost in written debate, and you can use fonts now, so there isn't any excuse for the lack of clarity. I did read the entire debate and I wished that it were more focused on the arguments as opposed to the debaters, but oh well. Do better next time. Both of you guys are solid debaters, even though this debate was a landslide.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Like, seriously. Read my post after you read his last one. Maybe reread the whole debate. It's RIDICULOUS.
Posted by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
I have never seen a more abusive last argument. Ever.

1. All the "need evidence". You asked for evidence on like half the stuff I said, even though you had only asked for 2-3 before. New arguments which I can't respond to.

2. You pretend to refute my points, but all you're doing is asking for evidence and saying my logic fails, without providing your own logic to prove it does.

3. You failed to notice something I stressed: I was assessing a four round debate, NOT a 5 round debate with my example. Secondly, I said around 2.25. If you had checked, you would have realized it was only two lines more than two pages. I just said 2.25 to make it simpler.

I can't believe how abusive that was. You didn't even refute any of my points. And you ignored my logic as if it didn't count... Plus, your debates weren't "evidence".
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Zealous1ScyroneTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: A bit of irony that Con argued for stricter character limits and being concise as a positive given the length of the posts.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
Zealous1ScyroneTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.