The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

# of rounds in debate should be increased

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 17869
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Resolution: I think the maximum # of rounds for a debate should be more than 5.


I accept your challege. Thank you for this debate. Hope we have fun.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting, and welcome him to the site, enjoy, its a great place if your open minded.

My argument is simple it doesn't hurt to give people more options. some debates are very long and very complicated and more rounds are needed to sort things out especially with regard to culture based debates It can take quite a few rounds to get a paradigm shift.

The reason for limiting rounds would be bec. then they would go on forever. to that my response is 3 fold

1) that's up to the debaters let them chose what they want. No one is being forced or tricked just read before accepting. It can also be discussed in the comments box prior to accepting.

2)the fact that it can go on forever just proves my point that more time is needed.

3) I never said no limit I only said a higher limit.


At we are allowed a maximum of 5 rounds and a maximum of 8000 characters. I find this to be sufficient.

My first point: Having this limited format helps retain the quality in debates. When i say quality i mean both the quality of the debates and the quality of joy that participants get from debating.
When the quality of rounds is increased, there is a tendency for debates to get repetitive. Opponents have a tendency to repeat the same points and at times to go off topic. In the words of Oliver Goldsmith:
In arguing too, the parson own'd his skill,
For e'en though vanquish'd he could argue still;

Second point:
At DDO we let readers decide on the winner, it is in the interest of both participants for the reader to go through their debates thoroughly. At DDO we are having facing the problem of unvoted debates. Proof:;

A larger number of rounds would discourage potential voters. As far as voters are considered, more the merrier.

My opponents pre-emptive argument:
1. that the fact that it can go on forever just proves my point that more time is needed.
2.I never said no limit I only said a higher limit.
If the debate can go on forever, then any finite number of rounds would be insufficient.
I intended to give my opponent freedom to manouvere(with regard to number of rounds) but since his point is that we need a higher limit, i must ask- how many rounds do you want?And why that specific number?

It is possible (improbable but possible) that two participants may want to continue their debate even though five rounds have elapsed. This would probably happen when both participants find each others arguments interesting, develop mutual respect for each other and want to continue debating. In this case, participants can simply start another debate on the same topic and continue where they left off.

Debate Round No. 2


((Note to my opponent I left a message that your link did not work.
This came up:
404 - File or directory not found.
The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
As far as I personally am concerned I am aware of the problem so you needn't fix it for me, but you may want to do so for yourself/readers. (As an aside It would help if we could make voting abilities to people of all countries this prevents me from voting.))

The crux of my argument is a simple one one that was unfortunately drooped by my opponent in the previous round, that is why not give the debaters the freedom to chose. Yes, there are good reasons to limit rounds as my opponent says but why not leave the decision up to the debaters. There are after all situations were the debater may have reason to want more rounds, as I mentioned in round 1, so why limit them. more choices and more freedom here is better.

The voting argument is irrelevant bec.:
a)If I haven't argued my point as well as I'd like to, I don't want people voting.
b)as above give people the choice. If they want to take a risk let them.


Regarding link, just select the web address in the new window and press enter, usually does the trick in these cases.
Ill try posting it again anyway:

I did respond to my opponents argument.As I have already stated, participants can always start a new debate. This is good because you can always choose to continue only if your opponent is good.
My opponents response:
a)If I haven't argued my point as well as I'd like to, I don't want people voting.
If your opponent does not want to continue because he is not making a good point, you can always get a vote on your current debate.

People do have a choice.Just start a new debate with the same topic and continue from there.

Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for this most enlightening debate I think we have both been enlightened with regard to the others point of view.

My argument is a simple one pro choice, if two debaters want to have 1 long debate. Why stop them.

My opponent offers an alternative start a new debate that continues the previous.

My response is, why should one have too. it's complicated, inconvenient, messier, annoying ect. The fact that they could do it another way is not a reason, to make them do it that way with no other reason.

More freedom, more choices, more options, is good. Let people do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others against their will.


More choices, more options, more freedom, vote pro.


My opponents point was that debates can go on forever( round1) and hence more time is needed.As i have already pointed out, if its going on forever then no amount of time will be sufficient.
He argues that there should be a higher limit. I asked him to state his limit and justify it. He could not do so because if he did, it would go against him. This is point is important becuase he wants a higher limit and not no limit.
I have made a strong case for limiting the rounds to maintain the quality of debates. My opponent has not been able to refute it.
My opponent wants more choices. Continuing the topic on a new debate represents not only more choices but a better quality of choice. We can continue only if the debate is good. If the rounds are unnecesssarily long then we cannot stop because it may count as forfeiture.Limiting the number of rounds does not limit our choice to having an extended debate.

Our current system maintains a certain quality of debate and this is relevant because it is the intention of Juggle to build and create websites heavily focused on engaging users with quality content.

Lastly i want to point out that even in this debate, 4 rounds have sufficed. As the reader may have noticed the same point was repeated by my opponent over and over again even though he was effectively rebutted right from round 2.

Have mercy, vote con !

I thank the reader for taking the time to go through this debate, we love you!
I thank my opponent for this topic and for consistently posting all his arguments. I hope we debate again.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by truthseeker613 7 years ago
your link doesn't work. this came up:
Server Error404 - File or directory not found.
The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Posted by truthseeker613 7 years ago
Yes I know I wrote the words I think. I will not use that in my debate I wrote it to counter anyone nitepicking on the word should. I'll nitpick on the words I think.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side used sources, both sides were polite and SG was fine. Con had multiple counter arguments and did address the "why not let people decide" pro never defended the position.