Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Debates & Charcter limit

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 9:10:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would like to consider the possibility of increasing the character count per round to 10,000 or 12,000 maybe even more ?

What are you thoughts, For or Against ? why ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 9:13:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 9:10:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I would like to consider the possibility of increasing the character count per round to 10,000 or 12,000 maybe even more ?

What are you thoughts, For or Against ? why ?

Leaning pro. On one hand, it is useful. On the other hand, reading really long debates can be time consuming and sometimes boring.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 9:15:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 9:10:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I would like to consider the possibility of increasing the character count per round to 10,000 or 12,000 maybe even more ?

What are you thoughts, For or Against ? why ?

I agree, there should be more room to make arguments. The only downfall of longer arguments is the fact that the longer they are, the less likely people are to want to read and vote on the debate. Ultimately though, I'm in agreement with you.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 12:42:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I used to be a big supporter of this because it seemed like everyone struggled to fit all their arguments in 8000 characters. But then I realized. Right now, we have 8000 characters to refute 8000 characters, and we have problems fitting all arguments. Well if we switch to 10,000, then we have 10,000 characters to refute 10,000 characters. Same ratio. While we may have more characters, so do our opponents. The same goes to any other number.

I'm fine with 8000 as it is now.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 12:47:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 12:42:54 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
I used to be a big supporter of this because it seemed like everyone struggled to fit all their arguments in 8000 characters. But then I realized. Right now, we have 8000 characters to refute 8000 characters, and we have problems fitting all arguments. Well if we switch to 10,000, then we have 10,000 characters to refute 10,000 characters. Same ratio. While we may have more characters, so do our opponents. The same goes to any other number.

I'm fine with 8000 as it is now.

Yeah I am starting to be less supportive of an increase limit too. But the thing is, what I really had in mind even with an increase limit per round, I wouldn't have 5 round debates with those limits.

I guess I was really after lesser round debates, but more characters per round.

But hey at least with an increase character limit, you can still choose 8,000 eh ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 1:16:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The problem is I can't do Policy Debates... Thus the problem: While 8,000 Characters suffice for 95% of debates, it is not sufficient for all debates.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 2:57:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My trouble is that I have only 8000 characters to rebut a previous round that was also 8000 characters. I need more than that, because rebuttals of an argument require more characters than the argument itself. In my last debate, I have had to drop a lot of essential points. I would support an increasing character limit as the rounds progress. You can start at 4000, then 8000, then 12000, then 16000 characters, as the rounds progress.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 2:00:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
8,000 is fine. Debaters will always have something more to say, but people will not want to read 12,000 characters. If the topic requires more then that, then the resolution should be more specific.

Gradually increasing the character limit is not a bad idea but I prefer keeping it the way is. Keeping arguments within the character limits is a matter of skill in communication, and both participants have the same opportunity.
aircraftmechgirl
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 4:26:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 2:00:39 AM, Double_R wrote:
8,000 is fine. Debaters will always have something more to say, but people will not want to read 12,000 characters. If the topic requires more then that, then the resolution should be more specific.


The only problem with that is, if you make a highly specific resolution, then you get accused of "forcing" the other side to argue with limitations. I think specific resolutions are great. Don't make me debate "abortion is bad," make me debate "federal funding for teen abortions is bad."

As for the character limit, I hate the limit because I'm pretty long-winded, but Double R is right. I need to learn to be more concise.
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 11:29:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
People always bring up the "people won't read it" claim which has merit, but I think in the instance of policy debate people wouldn't mind as much (and you don't have to read the evidence real in depth unless it has a significant impact on the debate)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 1:33:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No way, keep it to 8000 characters. In fact, if the Geneva Conventions don't prohibit five rounds of 8000 characters, they should. It's a matter of mercy for debate readers, and mercy for debaters opposing long-winded rants. If the topic won't fit in 8000 characters, narrow the topic. If opposition cannot be done in 8000 characters, don't take the debate.

Part of the skill of good debate is getting to the point directly. It's an important skill, and not easy. Mark Twain wrote, "I was going to write you a short letter, but I didn't have the time. So here is a long one."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 2:22:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 9:10:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I would like to consider the possibility of increasing the character count per round to 10,000 or 12,000 maybe even more ?

What are you thoughts, For or Against ? why ?

While it should be an option, it should only be used in rare cases. Not many people are going to want to read through 10,000 characters 6 times unless both sides do a really good job. Also, because people don't like to read too much, it is good to know how to compress your argument.

As learned from family guy, rather than a 12 point case on how X will improve the economy and those in the middle and lower class, simply say "9 - 11" and you'll get most votes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 8:25:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/25/2011 4:26:54 AM, aircraftmechgirl wrote:
At 7/25/2011 2:00:39 AM, Double_R wrote:

The only problem with that is, if you make a highly specific resolution, then you get accused of "forcing" the other side to argue with limitations.

I don't really think so. I think it's all in the way you define the resolution, and weather you leave a reasonable position for your opponent to take. If I'm Pro on "the sky is blue" and then I rule out philosophical arguments or whatever other obvious arguments one can make, then people will rightfully get on me.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2011 9:02:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No, the current limit of characters imposes a redoubtable, but ultimately beneficial, challenge for members, new and old, inexperienced and astute, to focus on being concise and use cogent arguments. Increasing the character limit might lead to a potential increase, of both want and application, of "filler text", strawmen arguments, and so on. Besides, reading walls of texts in a debate taxes the reader's attention and could discourage members from voting fairly on such a debate.

However, I do advocate excluding the list of links/works cited as part of the character limit. However, that is not germane to the topic presented by this forum.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau