Instigator / Pro
19
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2076

# DebateArt should lower the 30,000 character per argument limit

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
3

oromagi
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
24
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

by "lowering the 30,000 character limit" I meant that the max characters per argument should be less than this amount.

Round 1
Pro
#1
My argument is simple. The average Word length is 4.7 characters (https://medium.com/@wolfgarbe/the-average-word-length-in-english-language-is-4-7-35750344870f#:~:text=The%20average%20word%20length%20in%20English%20language%20is%204.7%20characters.) 30,000 characters means on average 6,000 monstrous words per argument. But this is simply absurd! Even an entire research paper is around only 1,500 words at maximum (https://howardcc.libanswers.com/faq/69833#:~:text=Assignments%20often%20specify%20a%20research,paper%20of%201500%2D1750%20words.) Unless my opponent can prove that a debate may need to present four research papers' amount of arguments paraphrased, the 30,000 character argument is simply overkill.

Debate.org's set example
On debate.org, people seem satisfied by 10,000 characters per argument (around 2,000 words). Why? It resembles the standard structure very closely. If you look at Wikipedia, it says the formal debate is either 8-4 minutes in high school or 10-5 minutes for college (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_policy_debate#:~:text=College%20debates%20typically%20have%2010,or%20even%20none%20at%20all.). Let's go a step further and even say professionals might be able to debate for 12 minutes for the first round. But the average person speaks about 125~150 words per minute. (https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wc/seven-ways-to-write-a-better-speech/#:~:text=The%20average%20person%20speaks%20at,count%20of%20about%202%2C500%20words.) Thus if you do the math, even 120*12 doesn't exceed the debate.org 10,000 character limit. Why should we violate standard rules?

Too many arguments (unnecessary space)
A lot of people might feel that that haven't used up their arguments and must fulfill extra words. This arguably wastes additional time. Due to the way Debateart.com works, the cross-examination (if any) would be best done in comments rather than spending time in the other 20,000 characters asking extra questions and potentially wasting time on extra meager arguments that, in the hope of being able to sneak a few arguments past their opponent. "Gish Gallop" is a famous strategy used, with potential for a ton of smaller arguments that would take a lot of time to refute. By forcing opponents to only have enough information to present in an actual formal debate, Debate.org's character limit encourages people to focus on the core of the debate. Not only would opponents have trouble extracting information, Voters would have a hard time looking through, as each round is reading 8 research papers worth. Which nobody wants to do.

I dare my opponent to refute me. I dare him to use even at least 25,000 of the 30,000 allowed characters. If he can show us that he (or maybe some other debater) needs 6,000 words worth each round to prove something, then he has made his point. But 30,000 characters is simply too much, and too absurd.
Con
#2
thx, seldiora, for the original topic

DebateArt SHOULD LOWER the 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT

DEFINITIONS:

DebateArt is "Debateart.com, the creator of this website"

SHOULD [verb] is "be obliged to; have an obligation to; indicates that the subject of the sentence has some obligation to execute the sentence predicate or that the speaker has some strong advice but has no authority to enforce it"

LOWER [verb] is "to decrease in value, amount, etc."

The 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT is a variable defined by the instigator when creating any new debate on DebateArt.com

BURDEN of PROOF

Wikipedia suggests:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."

CON interprets the resolution to mean that PRO must prove that the 30,000 CPA limit is unacceptably long.

CON1:

• The Character per Argument limit is adjustable to any value between 100 and 30000
• If Instigators (seldiora, for example) prefer a lower maximum, those users enjoy the option of a lower limit.
• If Instigators prefer a higher maximum, those users enjoy the option of a higher limit.
• Some users, for example, like to make allowance for inclusion of cut & pastes from prior arguments for a more cogent back and forth in the cross-examination.
• Since DebateArt.com's present format already provides a ready resolution to PRO's concern without any harm of disappointment or disadvantage for users who prefer a longer format, there's no obligation of DebateArt.com to make an unnecessary modification.
• In fact, a 10,000 Character per Argument limit is  already the default option for DebateArt instigated debates.
• 10,000 Character per Argument debates represent the popular standard at present although the trend seems to be towards even shorter debates.
• Curiously, PRO's debate history suggests that PRO is already aware of this option and so, aware of the spurious nature of PRO's argument
• Note that PRO doesn't offer a specific number for a new limit, suggesting that PRO is aware that  any new specific number is just as likely to please some and displease others as 30,000 with the distinct disadvantage of fewer options for users (That is, less than the 29,901 options presently available).
• Note that PRO chose the 30,000 Character per Argument limit is spite of declaiming a limit that large as "overkill"
CON2:

• Nobody is required to use all 30,000 characters.  The large limit is mostly designed to allow for long citations or to delineate generations of argument.
CONCLUSION

• Options are nice, even if some options seem impractical for the time being.  Excess capacity allows space for stylistic variations, even if those are variations that haven't been tried or imagined yet.
• Why should we limit our options if the present cost of more options is minimal? Let's maintain a capacity for ultra large debates and see what style of debate makes effective use of the option.

CON looks forward to PRO's R2 response.

SOURCES

Round 2
Pro
#3
My opponent argues that there may be potential capacity for extremely large debates, however, he pushes the burden of proof onto me, which is nonsense. He has shared burden of proof to show that these said to be extremely large debates are actually necessary. He has not negated the fact that no debate requires 6,000 words of information per round, that voters will be overwhelmed with too much information, should these debates actually begun. I started the debate with 30,000 characters limit to *show* the fact that we absolutely don't need anywhere close to 30,000 to prove our information. Even Oromagi's round only displays that conciseness is precisely what is necessary. The large character limit was completely unnecessary for our debate.

My opponent concedes that DebateArt's default is also 10,000 characters like Debate.org. I don't see why not this should be kept the maximum amount of value. In the comments, someone stated even with a lot of quotes, you would only need twice as much. Perhaps in information heavy debates, you would still only edge out 20,000 characters. Either case, this is far less than DebateArt's current 30,000 character limit.

Finally, my opponent states that cross-examination could potentially require more characters. I will argue that repeating the entirety of an opponent's potential 10,000 character argument is simply absurd, as summarizing and paraphrasing would still clarify these arguments. My opponent has not shown the necessity to copy extra upon the 10,000 character limit. Even if we look at edb8's top debates, the cross examination is not very long. They ask clarifying questions about the passages, and answer, and move on. Once again let me remind my opponent of the standard debate structure:

Event structure
The times and speech order are generally as follows:
Speech
Time (High School)
Time (College)
First Affirmative Constructive (1AC)
8 minutes
9 minutes
Cross-examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative
3 minutes
3 minutes
First Negative Constructive (1NC)
8 minutes
9 minutes
Cross-examination of First Negative by First Affirmative
3 minutes
3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC)
8 minutes
9 minutes
Cross-examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative
3 minutes
3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive (2NC)
8 minutes
9 minutes
Cross-examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative
3 minutes
3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR)
5 minutes
6 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)
5 minutes
6 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR)
5 minutes
6 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)
5 minutes
6 minutes

Even if we combine all the cross-examination for an intense debate (1,2,3,4, together for four cross examinations), with each round resembling a mini debate in itself, the 12 minutes are once again... barely defeating the 10,000 character limit. With the potential of 5 rounds on debateArt, you could spend 1 round constructing (equivalent to the 10 minute mark in college), 1 round cross examination, and still have room for three rebuttals, which match, if not exceed, the amount of time given in the formal debate structure.

Summary:

My opponent has NOT refuted the fact that there may be too much information to handle in 6,000 words worth of debate. He ADMITS people do not have to use all 30,000 characters, PROVING that the limit is unnecessary. If there was a speed limit of 100 MPH on the high way and most people went only 60 MPH, then clearly this speed limit would be unnecessary (should someone actually go 100 MPH and endanger people).

My opponent has NOT proved you need 6,000 words worth of quotations or resources to succeed. I could copy paste his entire round, and I would not even get half way through the 30,000 character limit.

My opponent ADMITS that the debateart default is 10,000 characters, and has not given evidence that people actively use and have good debates using most, if not all, 30,000 characters.
Con
#4
Thanks, seldiora, for the prompt response

DebateArt SHOULD LOWER the 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT

DEFINITIONS:

DebateArt is "Debateart.com, the creator of this website"

SHOULD [verb] is "be obliged to; have an obligation to; indicates that the subject of the sentence has some obligation to execute the sentence predicate or that the speaker has some strong advice but has no authority to enforce it"

LOWER [verb] is "to decrease in value, amount, etc."

The 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT is a variable defined by the instigator when creating any new debate on DebateArt.com
PRO has not objected to any of the DEFINITIONS proffered by CON.  DEFINITIONS stand.

BURDEN of PROOF

Wikipedia suggests:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."

CON interprets the resolution to mean that PRO must prove that the 30,000 CPA limit is unacceptably long.
My opponent argues that there may be potential capacity for extremely large debates, however, he pushes the burden of proof onto me, which is nonsense. He has shared burden of proof to show that these said to be extremely large debates are actually necessary. He has not negated the fact that no debate requires 6,000 words of information per round, that voters will be overwhelmed with too much information, should these debates actually begun. I started the debate with 30,000 characters limit to *show* the fact that we absolutely don't need anywhere close to 30,000 to prove our information. Even Oromagi's round only displays that conciseness is precisely what is necessary. The large character limit was completely unnecessary for our debate.
• CON challenges the misbegotten notion of "shared" burdens of proof.
• Debates were traditionally practice for law and/or politics.  In law and politics, the question is always binary- affirm/negate, guilty/ not guilty.  Dual burdens suggests that the instigator must prove one thesis and the contender must also develop a second, opposing thesis and prove that which creates four possible outcomes-
• /A proven B unproven/,
• /A unproven B proven/,
• /A proven B proven/,
• /A unproven B unproven/.
• Many theses don't have a true opposite or have multiple true opposites.
• Furthermore, the opposing thesis is almost never explicitly stated.  The contender is left proving some ill-defined negation.  Dual burdens makes for fuzzy, unfocused debates with much cloudier outcomes.
• It's like saying the state must prove the defendant guilty but also the defendant must prove himself innocent.
• Shared burdens is bullshit.
• CON has argued that:
• "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."
• According the definition of BURDEN of PROOF as quoted from Wikipedia, PRO has a doubled obligation to shoulder the entire burden of proof here:
• PRO instigated this debate and so PRO is the one making the claim, and
• PRO is challenging the perceived status quo (The 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT)
• In the practice of law,
• The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.
• PRO is the plaintiff here, the instigator, the one who thinks he sees a problem and so PRO must prove that a problem exists.  Just as a defendant is protected by the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, DebateArt.com is afforded the presumption that the present website format is effective and sufficient unless and until some complainant proves that there's some kind of problem worth addressing.
• Until PRO proves that the 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT represents some manner of undue harm or difficulty for debaters (which, of course, it doesn't) DebateArt.com and PRO's fellow debaters can rest idle on the principles of
• conservation of energy and
• law.com defines BURDEN of PROOF as
• n. the requirement that the plaintiff show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are presented and are probably true.
• In this particular game, PRO has the serve.  CON need only volley.
• So far, the totality of PRO's argument is "nonsense."
• he pushes the burden of proof onto me, which is nonsense.
• Since PRO is contradicted by any conventional understanding of BURDEN of PROOF, PRO's argument against full burden must elaborate beyond mere invective.
• ...and PRO must prove that the 30,000 CPA limit is unacceptably long.
PRO1:
My argument is simple. The average Word length is 4.7 characters.   30,000 characters means on average 6,000 monstrous words per argument. But this is simply absurd! Even an entire research paper is around only 1,500 words at maximum.
• OVERKILL is "an unnecessary excess of whatever is needed to achieve a goal"
• But PRO is too simple in the imagination of fulfillable goals using the DebartArt format.  PRO ignores the potential advantages of long cut & pastes from prior arguments or sources.  PRO ignores non-standard debate formats like literary debates or poetry debates.  The only reason the Character per Argument limit seems like an unnecessary excess to PRO is because if so narrowly defining the potential formats of a contest on DebateArt.
• A good example of PRO's overly narrow conception is PRO's insistence that research papers are confined to a maximum of 1500 words.
• WIkipedia advises that a RESEARCH PAPER may refer to:
• Academic paper (also called scholarly paper), which is in academic journals and contains original research results or reviews existing results or show a totally new invention
• Position paper, an essay that represents the author's opinion
• Term paper, written by high school or college students
• Thesis or dissertation, a document submitted in support of a candidature for a degree or professional qualification, presenting the author's research and findings
• So, there's lots of research papers that are way longer than PRO's 1500 word limit.
• The famous mathematical proof, "The Classification of Finite Simple Groups: Groups of Characteristic 2 Type" is  a RESEARCH PAPER that is thousands of pages long already and continues to grow
• "As of 2019, eight volumes of the second generation proof have been published (Gorenstein, Lyons & Solomon 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2018a, 2018b). In 2012 Solomon estimated that the project would need another 5 volumes, but said that progress on them was slow. It is estimated that the new proof will eventually fill approximately 5,000 pages."
• "The longest phd dissertation ever written was by a historian called Joachim Schumacher. His paper was devoted to the development of sailing. His paper originally contained around 2,654 pages, but was shorted to 2,200 pages after revisions, and was submitted at the University of Konstanz, located in Germany. Because of its astounding length, it earned a place and was mentioned in the Guinness World Records."
• PRO's assertion that RESEARCH PAPERs max out at 1500 words is shown to be unfounded.
• Unless my opponent can prove that a debate may need to present four research papers' amount of arguments paraphrased, the 30,000 character argument is simply overkill.
• Since PRO's 1500 word limit is shown to be false, PRO's assertion that a the 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT represents "four research papers amount of arguments" is likewise false.
• OBJECTION:  PRO is requiring CON to prove a falsified standard.
• PRO's only evidence for establishing the value OVERKILL has been show to be falsified and may be disregarded by VOTERs.
PRO2: Debate.org's set example
On debate.org, people seem satisfied by 10,000 characters per argument (around 2,000 words). Why? It resembles the standard structure very closely. If you look at Wikipedia, it says the formal debate is either 8-4 minutes in high school or 10-5 minutes for college.  Let's go a step further and even say professionals might be able to debate for 12 minutes for the first round. But the average person speaks about 125~150 words per minute.  Thus if you do the math, even 120*12 doesn't exceed the debate.org 10,000 character limit. Why should we violate standard rules?
• debate.org is defunct as debate website, a destination where ever increasing volumes of vitriol and spam form a kind of contextual black hole from which the extraction of any information becomes increasingly impossible.
• "Debate.org (often abbreviated as DDO, standing for Debate Dot Org) is an absolutely abhorrent 4chan knockoff website owned by Juggle, LLC. It's motto is "The Premier Online Debate Website". It provides a platform that allows users to discuss with each other about controversial topics. As of January 2015, there are 219,606 retards on debate.org."
• Let's not make any choice based on the argument "that's the way DDO did it." One of the primary motivations of DebateArt is to attract the talent of debaters like former DDO members without making the same mistakes as DDO, which includes
• failure to improve upon debate formats and
• failure to accommodate a wide variety of debate styles.
• PRO argues
• people seem satisfied by 10,000 characters per argument [because] it resembles the standard structure very closely
• PRO then defines "standard structure" as 4-5 minute arguments @ 125-150 words per minute, or
• 500 - 750 words per argument or
• 2350 - 3525 characters per argument using PRO's assumptions
• But that's only one quarter to one third of the size of the 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT disproving PRO claim that:
• 10,000 characters per argument... resembles the standard structure very closely
• In fact, PRO has argued that "people seem satisfied" with an option that's three or four times the size of what PRO calls a "standard structure."
• If many people are satisfied with 3 or 4 times PRO's standard, shouldn't it follow that at least some people would be satisfied with and option that is 9-12 times PRO's standard?
• This debater never took debate in school and is far too introverted to successfully participate in any live, public debate.
• Therefore, this debater has no interest in being held to "standard structures" that were developed by participants in a significantly different kind of contest than the types of contest offered here on DebateArt.
• CON assumes that at least some of CON's predisposition is shared by at least some of CON's fellow debaters.
• Let's not make any policy based on the argument "that's the way they did it in school." One of the primary motivations of DebateArt is to attract the talent of debaters from a variety of backgrounds and educations.  School debates were strictly formatted, well regulated and therefore mostly quite dull. Let's leave the school debate format behind us and experiment with longer forms of argument.  Or at least preserve the optional capacity for the ones who are willing to grow.
PRO3: Too many arguments (unnecessary space)

A lot of people might feel that that haven't used up their arguments and must fulfill extra words. This arguably wastes additional time.
• CON considers it a fairly well established principle that DebateArt is mostly about wasting time.  The perils of time wasted hold little power to intimidate or dismay the membership of this site.
Due to the way Debateart.com works, the cross-examination (if any) would be best done in comments rather than spending time in the other 20,000 characters asking extra questions and potentially wasting time on extra meager arguments
• So, to prevent over-lengthy arguments and wasted time, PRO's plan is to move the cross-examination out of the limited ARGUMENTS portion of the debate into the unlimited COMMENTS section?
• "The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums. Votes that impermissibly factor in outside content and which are reported will be removed."
• PRO's plan permits continuous volleying with no set expiration.  PRO could be adding new arguments, reinforcing evidence while CON is still replying to in-debate arguments.  How would VOTERs judge when the time for arguments have expired?  What if VOTERs were persuaded by arguments introduced outside of the debate?
• Based on the relentless last-wording, escalation, and one-upping demonstrated in some forums, PRO plan would likely replace overly long arguments with infinite arguments, taking way more than 30,000 characters and wasting far more time than any finite debate.
• PRO's plan would likely achieve the opposite of PRO's stated benefits (less wasted space, time), destabilizing the integrity of arguments, violating the provision of equal space for arguments as well as the Code of Conduct.
• PRO's plan should be rejected out of hand.
in the hope of being able to sneak a few arguments past their opponent. "Gish Gallop" is a famous strategy used, with potential for a ton of smaller arguments that would take a lot of time to refute.
• But also space.  Gish gallops require a lot of space to organize and refute a multitude of arguments.  Most debaters can fill a 1,000 character debate with 10 arguments, limiting one's opponent's replies to a sentence or two but few debater can fill a 30,000 character debate with 300 arguments, leaving the Gish gallop victim a lot more room to maneuver.
By forcing opponents to only have enough information to present in an actual formal debate, Debate.org's character limit encourages people to focus on the core of the debate.
• Yes, shorter debates improve clarity of purpose but impair documentation, complete explanations, and proper contextualization.

Not only would opponents have trouble extracting information, Voters would have a hard time looking through, as each round is reading 8 research papers worth. Which nobody wants to do.
• SEE => PRO1 above for CON's debunk of PRO's "research paper" metric.
• Some topics need more space to unfold than others.  PRO's plan is to deploy a cookie cutter approach to DebateArg arguments, excluding more complex topics (and therefore more erudite debaters).
• Let's maintain a variety of options that might attract a variety of debaters debating a variety of topics, some more complicated and difficult to read than others.
CON1:
• The Character per Argument limit is adjustable to any value between 100 and 30000
• If Instigators (seldiora, for example) prefer a lower maximum, those users enjoy the option of a lower limit.
• If Instigators prefer a higher maximum, those users enjoy the option of a higher limit.
• Some users, for example, like to make allowance for inclusion of cut & pastes from prior arguments for a more cogent back and forth in the cross-examination.
• my opponent states that cross-examination could potentially require more characters. I will argue that repeating the entirety of an opponent's potential 10,000 character argument is simply absurd, as summarizing and paraphrasing would still clarify these arguments.
• If one has the luxury of space, full cut & pastes have definite advantages.
• One doesn't have to devote mental energy towards summarizing and paraphrasing.  Some arguments are so poorly written or difficult to parse that summarizing and paraphrasing has the deleterious  effect making the opponent's argument more cogent to VOTERs.  Better to cut & paste the whole quote to remind readers of what they couldn't understand in the last round and improve your own argument by favorable contrast.
• Opponents might object to summaries and paraphrases as an inaccurate representation.  Just summarizing an opponent's argument opens a debater up to "don't put words in mouth" type counterarguments.
• Certainly, there's nothing absurd about connecting arguments to counterarguments as congently as possible while preserving the thrust of the opponent's intent to the maximum extent.
• Since DebateArt.com's present format already provides a ready resolution to PRO's concern without any harm of disappointment or disadvantage for users who prefer a longer format, there's no obligation of DebateArt.com to make an unnecessary modification.
• PRO drops this argument  How does PRO's plan resolve the harms of disappointment and disadvantage to debaters like CON who sometimes require a tremendous amount of space to complete a thought.
• For example, here is a debate CON only just completed that required multiple rounds of 25,000+, even one 28,000+ round.
• The Bible Created Western Civilization Part 1: Humanity, Rationality and Technology
• Under PRO's plan, CON would have been forced to truncate some fairly complicated arguments.
• PRO's plan would force CON to leave some good arguments unexpressed or to go with less persuasive but simpler arguments just because PRO has lowered our character ceiling to suit his personal preference.
• Would PRO's plan include a MEEP?
• Would PRO's fellow debaters' wishes be respected or even consulted?
• Can PRO justify making changes to traditional DebateArt values beyond personal satisfaction?
• In fact, a 10,000 Character per Argument limit is  already the default option for DebateArt instigated debates.
• 10,000 Character per Argument debates represent the popular standard at present although the trend seems to be towards even shorter debates.
• My opponent concedes that DebateArt's default is also 10,000 characters like Debate.org.
• Well, that's bullshit.  The argument is that a debater who prefers a 10,000 character maximum is not inconvenienced: they don't even have the change the default character count.
• Let's recall that CON has already argued that conforming to Debate.org standards is weak.  We want to do better than DDO, avoid DDO's stagnation- more options, more new approaches to debate.  PRO's argument want to preserve a failed tradition without explaining how merely following DDO isn't increasing the risk of sharing DDO's demise.
• PRO's claim to any concession on CON's part is fake news.
• I don't see why not this should be kept the maximum amount of value. In the comments, someone stated even with a lot of quotes, you would only need twice as much.
• unparseable
• disregarded
• Perhaps in information heavy debates, you would still only edge out 20,000 characters. Either case, this is far less than DebateArt's current 30,000 character limit.
• PRO's plan is remarkably vague on what optimal character per argument limit PRO is recommending.
• Most of the time, PRO seems to be calling for a 10,000 limit max but here is PRO conceding that some debates require twice that- 20,000 characters.
• Since PRO concedes that information "heavy" debates require more space, isn't it possible that PRO simply lacks familiarity with debates "heavy" enough to require 30,000?
• That is, does PRO concede the possibility that his inability to conceive a 30,000 character limit debate may be more of a failure of imagination than some illegitimate accommodation?
• In one sentence PRO writes
• 10,000 characters like Debate.org. I don't see why not this should be kept the maximum amount of value.
• but then PRO answers:  "Perhaps in information heavy debates...
• I agree with PRO, information heavy debates are one good reason why 10,000 characters should not be kept the maximum amount of value.
• Now, we're just debating about how heavy an "information heavy" debate might get.
• Curiously, PRO's debate history suggests that PRO is already aware of this option and so, aware of the spurious nature of PRO's argument
• We've established that PRO is aware that the character limit is variable and the default matches PRO's preference.  PRO knows he has the option to ignore 30,000 character limit debates so he's not claiming any inconvenience here.  PRO's main concern is to change other debater's behavior without even showing any personal harm or disadvantage.  Even if PRO can show that 30,000 characters is unnecessary for any possible topic or style of debate, the argument of waste makes little sense.   What resource is wasted by this character limit? PRO wants to argue time but its not PRO's time because PRO isn't opting for 30,000 character limit debates.  Other people's time, wasted or no, is not really PRO's business.
• Note that PRO doesn't offer a specific number for a new limit, suggesting that PRO is aware that  any new specific number is just as likely to please some and displease others as 30,000 with the distinct disadvantage of fewer options for users (That is, less than the 29,901 options presently available).
• As argued above.  PRO's plan should include a specific number for VOTER's consideration.  After all, PRO is not arguing for any reduction (all of PRO's anti-30,000 arguments equally apply to a 29,0000 character limit), PRO is arguing for 10,000 or maybe 20,000.  Seems reasonable for VOTERS to expect to know which.
• Note that PRO chose the 30,000 Character per Argument limit is spite of declaiming a limit that large as "overkill"
• I started the debate with 30,000 characters limit to *show* the fact that we absolutely don't need anywhere close to 30,000 to prove our information. Even Oromagi's round only displays that conciseness is precisely what is necessary. The large character limit was completely unnecessary for our debate.
• Unnecessary for our humble topic, sure, but hardly unnecessary for every topic and style.
• There are some complicated topics that sometimes merit more work.
• There are some writing styles that prefer to luxuriate in a bit of room.
• A high ceiling can also represent a tactical advantage to the verbose or creative.
CON2:

• Nobody is required to use all 30,000 characters.  The large limit is mostly designed to allow for long citations or to delineate generations of argument.
• Even if we look at edb8's top debates, the cross examination is not very long. They ask clarifying questions about the passages, and answer, and move on. Once again let me remind my opponent of the standard debate structure:

Event structure
The times and speech order are generally as follows:
Speech
Time (High School)
Time (College)
8 minutes
9 minutes
Cross-examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative
3 minutes
3 minutes
8 minutes
9 minutes
Cross-examination of First Negative by First Affirmative
3 minutes
3 minutes
8 minutes
9 minutes
Cross-examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative
3 minutes
3 minutes
8 minutes
9 minutes
Cross-examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative
3 minutes
3 minutes
5 minutes
6 minutes
5 minutes
6 minutes
5 minutes
6 minutes
5 minutes
6 minutes
• SEE =>The OBJECTION in  PRO2: Debate.org's set example
• Let's not make any policy based on the argument "that's the way they did it in school." One of the primary motivations of DebateArt is to attract the talent of debaters from a variety of backgrounds and educations.  School debates were strictly formatted, well regulated and therefore mostly quite dull. Let's leave the school debate format behind us and experiment with longer forms of argument.  Or at least preserve the optional capacity for the ones who are willing to grow.
• Is PRO advocating for a complete reformatting of debates?  This policy debate format is not particularly adaptable to the present application but that's not because of a too high character limit, its because the app doesn't support that many rounds of argument.  If PRO is looking for a policy debate format than the 30,000 character limit is not presenting any obstacle .
• Even if we combine all the cross-examination for an intense debate (1,2,3,4, together for four cross examinations), with each round resembling a mini debate in itself, the 12 minutes are once again... barely defeating the 10,000 character limit. With the potential of 5 rounds on debateArt, you could spend 1 round constructing (equivalent to the 10 minute mark in college), 1 round cross examination, and still have room for three rebuttals, which match, if not exceed, the amount of time given in the formal debate structure.
• Fine.  I think you should pursue that debate option.  Why can't other debaters pursue different preferences?
Summary:
My opponent has NOT refuted the fact that there may be too much information to handle in 6,000 words worth of debate.
• I do so refute.  6,000 words is not necessarily too much information in many circumstances.  I'd like to explore some effective arguments that require 6000 words to explain.
He ADMITS people do not have to use all 30,000 characters, PROVING that the limit is unnecessary.
• That does not track. People do not have to use all of 10,000 characters either and many debaters, maybe even most debaters here never make a 10,000 character argument but PRO has conceded that sometimes even 20,000 character arguments  are necessary for "heavy" debates.  If lack of use by many or most translates to unnecessary then 10,000 character limit arguments are nearly as unnecessary as 30,000 arguments and PRO is contradicting himself again.
If there was a speed limit of 100 MPH on the high way and most people went only 60 MPH, then clearly this speed limit would be unnecessary (should someone actually go 100 MPH and endanger people).
• This metaphor informs CON's argument nicely.  If this highway has been graded to be safe for speeds of 100mph (Eastern Arizona, for example), then I want the option to drive 100mph and I don't care what "most people" do.  Sure, most of the time I might only be driving 80mph but I want to default to maximum freedom within reasonable precautions like safe speed limits and minimum regulation, particularly if the only advantage is to satisfy conformity.
My opponent has NOT proved you need 6,000 words worth of quotations or resources to succeed.
• And why would we need to prove that?  CON is just as content to argue for a right to fail.  CON argues for the status quo, let's maintain some excess space for super heavy concepts and user experimentation with very long arguments. Success or failure is irrelevant to the value of reserves in any resource.  Reserves or good whether you're winning or losing.  Let's preserve the option of a little extra space.
I could copy paste his entire round, and I would not even get half way through the 30,000 character limit.
• Proving nothing.  A long argument is not never required just because short arguments will often do.

My opponent ADMITS that the debateart default is 10,000 characters, and has not given evidence that people actively use and have good debates using most, if not all, 30,000 characters.
• Again, SEE =>  PRO2: Debate.org's set example

• Let's not make any choice based on the argument "that's the way DDO did it." One of the primary motivations of DebateArt is to attract the talent of debaters like former DDO members without making the same mistakes as DDO, which includes
• failure to improve upon debate formats and
• failure to accommodate a wide variety of debate styles.

I dare my opponent to refute me. I dare him to use even at least 25,000 of the 30,000 allowed characters. If he can show us that he (or maybe some other debater) needs 6,000 words worth each round to prove something, then he has made his point. But 30,000 characters is simply too much, and too absurd.
• PRO concedes this debate if CON can show VOTERs that CON needs a 30,000 character debate to prove something.
• Let this argument provide the requested demonstration since CON is obliged to use 30,000 characters in order to prove PRO wrong.
CONCLUSION (unchanged)

• Options are nice, even if some options seem impractical for the time being.  Excess capacity allows space for stylistic variations, even if those are variations that haven't been tried or imagined yet.
• Why should we limit our options if the present cost of more options is minimal? Let's maintain a capacity for ultra large debates and see what style of debate makes effective use of the option.
CON looks forward to PRO's conclusion.
Round 3
Pro
#5
My opponent tries to assert the burden of proof on me, however, this leads to a slippery slope in his argument -- if 30,000 is good, then people might think 40,000 is good, or 50,000, onwards and onward, until they ask the ultimate question: Why shouldn't we allow unlimited characters? The big problem as I said is that people have limited time, limited research. My opponent has indeed used most of his 30,000 allotted characters, but he only proves my point that those debates that do in fact have 30,000 characters are filled to the brim with too much unnecessary sources. If he wanted to prove I had burden of proof he could have simply summarized his ideas instead of copy pasting the entire definitions.

He mentions many research papers being insanely long and in-depth, however, he has still not proved that in debates, each round it is necessary to add upon that much information. If we went with the unlimited character idea, would someone really want to browse through 2,000 pages of research to disprove their opponent? What more, would voters really want to read the perhaps equally long 2,000 page long refutation? This is a casual and friendly website, not a heavy research challenge.

My opponent tries to say I contradicted myself with the 4~5 minute arguments, however, he fails to realize that the opening argument is 10 minutes long, and that people may have moments of silence to think between the conversation. That's why I used 10*150*7, to estimate how long it would require to replicate the idea presented in high school debates. My opponent is being illogical by trying to say that some people may be satisfied with 30,000 characters.

Oromagi falsely interprets my "cross examination" section, I am saying that it arguably either doesn't work as well in DebateArt, or simply doesn't require the extra characters. Comment section clarification of various definitions and questions, in order to ensure the debate goes well. This does not violate the Code of Conduct.

Oromagi argues that it takes more energy to summarize and paraphrase rather than copy paste, but has he considered the energy that I so called forth to mention that people will have to trudge through so many words worth or arguments?

He argues that he required all the 25,000 characters of his argument in the other debate. Skimming it over, it seems he has a lot of copy pasted information, and even bold the important essential. Why, he could've simply just typed in Western Civilization's definition comes from Ancient Greece, with major advances providing the expansion for early Christianity. Then just copy past the final sentence for emphasis, "  Empiricism later gave rise to the scientific method, the scientific revolution, and the Age of Enlightenment".  He has not shown that he absolutely needs to copy paste the entire sources, especially with the "after the fall of the roman empire..." as well as "in essence..." passage, that hogs up a lot of space. His opponent's counter is far more succinct and proves that you don't need so many characters to prove your point. PRO did indeed lose the debate, but not necessarily due to lack of use of characters, but rather not sticking to a solid definition, which does not require 30,000 characters at all.

It seems my opponent is confused about my stance. Different people and different websites can have different formats, of course. But the standard of debate goes to show people's attention span and how much information they think they are supposed to convey in any debate. Oromagi argues that for extremely heavy topics you may need 30,000 characters, but his own example, and even his last round, both show that even these "massive character" debate are mostly composed of copy pasting from other sites or from the others' own words. I was able to sum up our ideas quite neatly, and our first round goes to prove that my opponent understands exactly how to refute someone neatly and concisely. Compared to 20,000 characters, extra 10,000 characters of quotes encourage a lowered quality of debate as you begin repeating exact words. I do not have to prove that 20,000 characters will completely solve the problem, I only have to prove that lowering it by at least 10,000 characters will alleviate the problem some what. If more people complain that even 20,000 character arguments are troublesome, then even better. Maybe 15,000 or 10,000 is better. Regardless, all these numbers are fewer than 30,000, proving my point.

It's like the famous quote by Ernest Rutherford: "an alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid". If you need 30,000 characters, copy pasting from countless sources to prove your point, then perhaps you do not know your point at all. Do you think formal debaters waste their time memorizing other entire speeches and telling them to the audience? Part of debate is about your interpretation and clever way of summarizing the information.

Voters, which do you prefer? My opponent proving that his 30,000 character argument only brought in so many other sources and required borrowing others' words endlessly? Or his first round, easier to read, more concise, and proving more points? Clearly, he himself, by posting his incredibly long argument, has shown that similar to Gish Gallop, debaters may have problems knowing which sources out of their 100 sources are trustworthy, are relevant, and necessary.

This case is closed.
Con
#6
Thanks, seldiora, for the prompt response

DebateArt SHOULD LOWER the 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT

DEFINITIONS:

• PRO has not objected to any of the DEFINITIONS proffered by CON.  DEFINITIONS stand.

BURDEN of PROOF

Wikipedia suggests:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."

CON interprets the resolution to mean that PRO must prove that the 30,000 CPA limit is unacceptably long.
My opponent argues that there may be potential capacity for extremely large debates, however, he pushes the burden of proof onto me, which is nonsense. He has shared burden of proof to show that these said to be extremely large debates are actually necessary. He has not negated the fact that no debate requires 6,000 words of information per round, that voters will be overwhelmed with too much information, should these debates actually begun. I started the debate with 30,000 characters limit to *show* the fact that we absolutely don't need anywhere close to 30,000 to prove our information. Even Oromagi's round only displays that conciseness is precisely what is necessary. The large character limit was completely unnecessary for our debate.
• CON challenges the misbegotten notion of "shared" burdens of proof.
• Debates were traditionally practice for law and/or politics.  In law and politics, the question is always binary- affirm/negate, guilty/ not guilty.  Dual burdens suggests that the instigator must prove one thesis and the contender must also develop a second, opposing thesis and prove that which creates four possible outcomes-
• /A proven B unproven/,
• /A unproven B proven/,
• /A proven B proven/,
• /A unproven B unproven/.
• Many theses don't have a true opposite or have multiple true opposites.
• It's like saying the state must prove the defendant guilty but also the defendant must prove himself innocent.
• Shared burdens is bullshit.
• PRO drops CON's argument deriding shared burdens of proof.
• CON has argued that:
• "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."
• According the definition of BURDEN of PROOF as quoted from Wikipedia, PRO has a doubled obligation to shoulder the entire burden of proof here:
• PRO instigated this debate and so PRO is the one making the claim, and
• PRO is challenging the perceived status quo (The 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT)
• In the practice of law,
• The burden of proof is always on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.
• PRO is the plaintiff here, the instigator, the one who thinks he sees a problem and so PRO must prove that a problem exists.  Just as a defendant is protected by the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, DebateArt.com is afforded the presumption that the present website format is effective and sufficient unless and until some complainant proves that there's some kind of problem worth addressing.
• Until PRO proves that the 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT represents some manner of undue harm or difficulty for debaters (which, of course, it doesn't) DebateArt.com and PRO's fellow debaters can rest idle on the principles of
• conservation of energy and
• law.com defines BURDEN of PROOF as
• n. the requirement that the plaintiff show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are presented and are probably true.
• In this particular game, PRO has the serve.  CON need only volley.
• So far, the totality of PRO's argument is "nonsense."
• he pushes the burden of proof onto me, which is nonsense.
• Since PRO is contradicted by any conventional understanding of BURDEN of PROOF, PRO's argument against full burden must elaborate beyond mere invective.
• ...and PRO must prove that the 30,000 CPA limit is unacceptably long.
• My opponent tries to assert the burden of proof on me, however, this leads to a slippery slope in his argument -- if 30,000 is good, then people might think 40,000 is good, or 50,000, onwards and onward, until they ask the ultimate question: Why shouldn't we allow unlimited characters?
• How does PRO's well-established burden of proof lead to a slippery slope?  PRO fails to explain the connection.
• There is no slippery slope in CON's argument.
• A slippery slope argument , "in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is often viewed as a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences."
• But unlike PRO, CON is not asserting any step or specific decision.  CON is only arguing for inaction- preservation of the status quo.  PRO is arguing without any warrant that doing nothing will inevitably lead to larger Character limits in future
• PRO's presumption is not backed by any evidence and so must fail.
• CON assumes that limitations of web design and digital storage likely inhibit unlimited character character counts.
• The big problem as I said is that people have limited time, limited research.
• And so debaters should have  time and character count options that can be customized to accommodate the variable limitations of different members.  The imposition of a "one size fits all" character limit does little to improve debater's time and research capacity but it does preclude certain types of "heavy" debates, as PRO has termed them, as well as excluding certain expansive styles of writing.
• My opponent has indeed used most of his 30,000 allotted characters,
• Let's recall that in R1, PRO offered to concede CON's argument if CON can show a need for a 30,000 character debate to "prove something."
• If he can show us that he (or maybe some other debater) needs 6,000 words worth each round to prove something, then he has made his point.
• In R3, PRO maxed out the 30,000 character limit to satisfy PRO's dare and prove CON wrong in the assertion that 30,000 characters is always, only overkill.
• Yet PRO has failed to concede the debate and reneged on PRO's R1 offer.
• but he only proves my point that those debates that do in fact have 30,000 characters are filled to the brim with too much unnecessary sources. If he wanted to prove I had burden of proof he could have simply summarized his ideas instead of copy pasting the entire definitions.
• But merely asserting PRO's BURDEN of PROOF is unlikely to persuade many VOTERs.
• Isn't it far more convincing to quote reference material establishing PRO's BURDEN as a matter of long established customary behavior?
• and when PRO denied the custom, wasn't it more convincing to add the additional weight of political and legal traditions, establishing that PRO's obligation is rooted in old, formal rules of debate?
• Let's note that PRO never met his burden to prove that the 30,000 character limit is unacceptably long.  PRO ignored the rules and demanded that PRO show that maxing out  30,000 characters is sometimes useful which PRO has shown in spite of the absence of any obligation on CON's part.
PRO1:
My argument is simple. The average Word length is 4.7 characters.   30,000 characters means on average 6,000 monstrous words per argument. But this is simply absurd! Even an entire research paper is around only 1,500 words at maximum.  Unless my opponent can prove that a debate may need to present four research papers' amount of arguments paraphrased, the 30,000 character argument is simply overkill.
• Since PRO's 1500 word limit is shown to be false, PRO's assertion that a the 30,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT represents "four research papers amount of arguments" is likewise false.
• OBJECTION:  PRO is requiring CON to prove a falsified standard.
• PRO's only evidence for establishing the value OVERKILL has been show to be falsified and may be disregarded by VOTERs.
• He mentions many research papers being insanely long and in-depth, however, he has still not proved that in debates, each round it is necessary to add upon that much information. If we went with the unlimited character idea, would someone really want to browse through 2,000 pages of research to disprove their opponent? What more, would voters really want to read the perhaps equally long 2,000 page long refutation? This is a casual and friendly website, not a heavy research challenge.
• PRO misreads CON's  RESEARCH PAPER counterargument.  PRO argued that 30,000 characters translated to four research papers worth of data.  CON showed that PRO's definition of RESEARCH PAPER was far more restricted than the actual range of RESEARCH PAPER sizes in the real world.
• PRO believes that RESEARCH PAPERS can only be less than 1500 words in the same limited and presumptuous way that PRO believes that DEBATES can only be less than 10,000 characters (or sometimes 20,000).
• OBJECTION: straw man
• CON has not argued for any change to the 30,000 character limit variable much less some silly, unsustainable change to "unlimited" characters.  PRO has now argued twice against an unlimited variable never suggested or even mentioned by CON.  VOTERs should disregard PRO's failed tactic.
PRO2: Debate.org's set example
On debate.org, people seem satisfied by 10,000 characters per argument (around 2,000 words). Why? It resembles the standard structure very closely. If you look at Wikipedia, it says the formal debate is either 8-4 minutes in high school or 10-5 minutes for college.  Let's go a step further and even say professionals might be able to debate for 12 minutes for the first round. But the average person speaks about 125~150 words per minute.  Thus if you do the math, even 120*12 doesn't exceed the debate.org 10,000 character limit. Why should we violate standard rules?
• debate.org is defunct as debate website, a destination where ever increasing volumes of vitriol and spam form a kind of contextual black hole from which the extraction of any information becomes increasingly impossible.
• "Debate.org (often abbreviated as DDO, standing for Debate Dot Org) is an absolutely abhorrent 4chan knockoff website owned by Juggle, LLC. It's motto is "The Premier Online Debate Website". It provides a platform that allows users to discuss with each other about controversial topics. As of January 2015, there are 219,606 retards on debate.org."
• Let's not make any choice based on the argument "that's the way DDO did it." One of the primary motivations of DebateArt is to attract the talent of debaters like former DDO members without making the same mistakes as DDO, which includes
• failure to improve upon debate formats and
• failure to accommodate a wide variety of debate styles.
• PRO drops the arguments against following DDO standards.
• PRO argues
• people seem satisfied by 10,000 characters per argument [because] it resembles the standard structure very closely
• PRO then defines "standard structure" as 4-5 minute arguments @ 125-150 words per minute, or
• 500 - 750 words per argument or
• 2350 - 3525 characters per argument using PRO's assumptions
• But that's only one quarter to one third of the size of the 10,000 CHARACTER per ARGUMENT LIMIT disproving PRO claim that:
• 10,000 characters per argument... resembles the standard structure very closely
• In fact, PRO has argued that "people seem satisfied" with an option that's three or four times the size of what PRO calls a "standard structure."
• If many people are satisfied with 3 or 4 times PRO's standard, shouldn't it follow that at least some people would be satisfied with and option that is 9-12 times PRO's standard?
• My opponent tries to say I contradicted myself with the 4~5 minute arguments, however, he fails to realize that the opening argument is 10 minutes long, and that people may have moments of silence to think between the conversation. That's why I used 10*150*7, to estimate how long it would require to replicate the idea presented in high school debates.
• Let's set 10 minute arguments and "moments of silence" aside (not a lot moments of silence in debate).  The point is that PRO claims that 10,000 characters "very closely" resembles "standard structure."  But PRO's "standard structure" is a school standard and the total number of words come nowhere close to half of 10,000.  PRO seems willing to adopt any character count and call that count standard just sol long as it is not 30,000 characters per argument.
• My opponent is being illogical by trying to say that some people may be satisfied with 30,000 characters.
• Seems like a fairly non-controversial assumption.  How is deriving satisfaction from a longer debate form illogical?
PRO3: Too many arguments (unnecessary space)
Due to the way Debateart.com works, the cross-examination (if any) would be best done in comments rather than spending time in the other 20,000 characters asking extra questions and potentially wasting time on extra meager arguments
• So, to prevent over-lengthy arguments and wasted time, PRO's plan is to move the cross-examination out of the limited ARGUMENTS portion of the debate into the unlimited COMMENTS section?
• Oromagi falsely interprets my "cross examination" section, I am saying that it arguably either doesn't work as well in DebateArt, or simply doesn't require the extra characters. Comment section clarification of various definitions and questions, in order to ensure the debate goes well. This does not violate the Code of Conduct.
• In R2, PRO argued that "cross-examination would be best done in comments".  CON pointed out such a system would be unworkable and a violation of the Code of Conduct.  Now PRO says that CON falsely interpreted "cross-examination would be best done in comments" to mean that cross-examination would best be done in comments when what PRO was only meaning was that clarifications should be offered in comments, which
• is not relevant to PRO's argument, and
• ain't what PRO said.
• One advantage of extra space is the capacity to cut & past quotes from one's opponent and reply directly.
• PRO has withdrawn his suggestion of moving cross-examination to the comments section.
• in the hope of being able to sneak a few arguments past their opponent. "Gish Gallop" is a famous strategy used, with potential for a ton of smaller arguments that would take a lot of time to refute.
• But also space.  Gish gallops require a lot of space to organize and refute a multitude of arguments.  Most debaters can fill a 1,000 character debate with 10 arguments, limiting one's opponent's replies to a sentence or two but few debater can fill a 30,000 character debate with 300 arguments, leaving the Gish gallop victim a lot more room to maneuver.
• PRO drops CON's argument that gish gallops are more devastating in more limited contexts and 30,000 gives the victim room to corral that horse.
• Some topics need more space to unfold than others.  PRO's plan is to deploy a cookie cutter approach to DebateArg arguments, excluding more complex topics (and therefore more erudite debaters).
• Let's maintain a variety of options that might attract a variety of debaters debating a variety of topics, some more complicated and difficult to read than others.
• PRO ignores CON's appeal for variety.
CON1:
• my opponent states that cross-examination could potentially require more characters. I will argue that repeating the entirety of an opponent's potential 10,000 character argument is simply absurd, as summarizing and paraphrasing would still clarify these arguments.
• If one has the luxury of space, full cut & pastes have definite advantages.
• One doesn't have to devote mental energy towards summarizing and paraphrasing.  Some arguments are so poorly written or difficult to parse that summarizing and paraphrasing has the deleterious  effect making the opponent's argument more cogent to VOTERs.  Better to cut & paste the whole quote to remind readers of what they couldn't understand in the last round and improve your own argument by favorable contrast.
• Opponents might object to summaries and paraphrases as an inaccurate representation.  Just summarizing an opponent's argument opens a debater up to "don't put words in mouth" type counterarguments.
• Certainly, there's nothing absurd about connecting arguments to counterarguments as congently as possible while preserving the thrust of the opponent's intent to the maximum extent.
• Oromagi argues that it takes more energy to summarize and paraphrase rather than copy paste, but has he considered the energy that I so called forth to mention that people will have to trudge through so many words worth or arguments?
• Of course I have considered readers and VOTERs.  What dynamic represents the greater trudge?
• flipping back a few arguments to try to locate the exact quote under discussion
• or
• reading the exact quote highlighted right there with as much context as possible?
• Contextual cut & paste is a major convenience for readers and VOTERs.
• Since DebateArt.com's present format already provides a ready resolution to PRO's concern without any harm of disappointment or disadvantage for users who prefer a longer format, there's no obligation of DebateArt.com to make an unnecessary modification.
• PRO still drops this argument  How does PRO's plan resolve the harms of disappointment and disadvantage to debaters like CON who sometimes require a tremendous amount of space to complete a thought.
• PRO's plan would force CON to leave some good arguments unexpressed or to go with less persuasive but simpler arguments just because PRO has lowered our character ceiling to suit his personal preference.
• PRO drops this argument.
• Would PRO's plan include a MEEP?
• PRO doesn't say.
• Would PRO's fellow debaters' wishes be respected or even consulted?
• Can PRO justify making changes to traditional DebateArt values beyond personal satisfaction?
• PRO fails to respond.
• My opponent concedes that DebateArt's default is also 10,000 characters like Debate.org.
• Well, that's bullshit.  The argument is that a debater who prefers a 10,000 character maximum is not inconvenienced: they don't even have the change the default character count.
• Let's recall that CON has already argued that conforming to Debate.org standards is weak.  We want to do better than DDO, avoid DDO's stagnation- more options, more new approaches to debate.  PRO's argument want to preserve a failed tradition without explaining how merely following DDO isn't increasing the risk of sharing DDO's demise.
• PRO's claim to any concession on CON's part is fake news.
• PRO entirely drops CON's fairly forceful response.
• I don't see why not this should be kept the maximum amount of value. In the comments, someone stated even with a lot of quotes, you would only need twice as much.
• unparseable
• disregarded
• PRO failed to explain.
• Perhaps in information heavy debates, you would still only edge out 20,000 characters. Either case, this is far less than DebateArt's current 30,000 character limit.
• PRO's plan is remarkably vague on what optimal character per argument limit PRO is recommending.
• Most of the time, PRO seems to be calling for a 10,000 limit max but here is PRO conceding that some debates require twice that- 20,000 characters.
• Since PRO concedes that information "heavy" debates require more space, isn't it possible that PRO simply lacks familiarity with debates "heavy" enough to require 30,000?
• That is, does PRO concede the possibility that his inability to conceive a 30,000 character limit debate may be more of a failure of imagination than some illegitimate accommodation?
• It seems my opponent is confused about my stance. Different people and different websites can have different formats, of course. But the standard of debate goes to show people's attention span and how much information they think they are supposed to convey in any debate. Oromagi argues that for extremely heavy topics you may need 30,000 characters, but his own example, and even his last round, both show that even these "massive character" debate are mostly composed of copy pasting from other sites or from the others' own words.
• CON remains confused.  PRO talks about setting a standard of debate but his standard seems to allow for anything from 3,000 character limits to 20,000 character limits.  What is PRO's standard?  PRO never really says.
• PRO argues that the debate standard should reflect people's attention span and data absorption capacity but that's highly variable among people.  How is PRO measuring people's attention span and data capacity?  Has PRO considered the possibility that his own attention span and data capacity may not be particularly representative?
• PRO was asked in both prior rounds to submit an actual number for a character limit and PRO has dodged the question.  How can PRO be so confident that the 30,000 limit is unacceptable and yet be so uncertain about new limit would be acceptable?
• In one sentence PRO writes
• 10,000 characters like Debate.org. I don't see why not this should be kept the maximum amount of value.
• but then PRO answers:  "Perhaps in information heavy debates...
• I agree with PRO, information heavy debates are one good reason why 10,000 characters should not be kept the maximum amount of value.
• Now, we're just debating about how heavy an "information heavy" debate might get.
• PRO doesn't clear up the contradiction or set a character limit likely to accommodate every debate of any information "weight".
• Curiously, PRO's debate history suggests that PRO is already aware of this option and so, aware of the spurious nature of PRO's argument
• We've established that PRO is aware that the character limit is variable and the default matches PRO's preference.  PRO knows he has the option to ignore 30,000 character limit debates so he's not claiming any inconvenience here.  PRO's main concern is to change other debater's behavior without even showing any personal harm or disadvantage.  Even if PRO can show that 30,000 characters is unnecessary for any possible topic or style of debate, the argument of waste makes little sense.   What resource is wasted by this character limit? PRO wants to argue time but its not PRO's time because PRO isn't opting for 30,000 character limit debates.  Other people's time, wasted or no, is not really PRO's business.
• PRO never addresses this core concern.  What is being wasted except by personal choice? Why can't PRO simply ignore the 30,000 character limit?
• Note that PRO chose the 30,000 Character per Argument limit is spite of declaiming a limit that large as "overkill"
• I started the debate with 30,000 characters limit to *show* the fact that we absolutely don't need anywhere close to 30,000 to prove our information. Even Oromagi's round only displays that conciseness is precisely what is necessary. The large character limit was completely unnecessary for our debate.
• Unnecessary for our humble topic, sure, but hardly unnecessary for every topic and style.
• There are some complicated topics that sometimes merit more work.
• There are some writing styles that prefer to luxuriate in a bit of room.
• A high ceiling can also represent a tactical advantage to the verbose or creative.
• PRO never address CON's legitimate justifications for large character counts here..
CON2:

• Nobody is required to use all 30,000 characters.  The large limit is mostly designed to allow for long citations or to delineate generations of argument.
• Even if we look at edb8's top debates, the cross examination is not very long. They ask clarifying questions about the passages, and answer, and move on. Once again let me remind my opponent of the standard debate structure:
• SEE =>The OBJECTION in  PRO2: Debate.org's set example

• Even if we combine all the cross-examination for an intense debate (1,2,3,4, together for four cross examinations), with each round resembling a mini debate in itself, the 12 minutes are once again... barely defeating the 10,000 character limit. With the potential of 5 rounds on debateArt, you could spend 1 round constructing (equivalent to the 10 minute mark in college), 1 round cross examination, and still have room for three rebuttals, which match, if not exceed, the amount of time given in the formal debate structure.
• PRO never explains whether PRO is advocating more changes than just the character limit, as seems to be case here.
He ADMITS people do not have to use all 30,000 characters, PROVING that the limit is unnecessary.
• That does not track. People do not have to use all of 10,000 characters either and many debaters, maybe even most debaters here never make a 10,000 character argument but PRO has conceded that sometimes even 20,000 character arguments  are necessary for "heavy" debates.  If lack of use by many or most translates to unnecessary then 10,000 character limit arguments are nearly as unnecessary as 30,000 arguments and PRO is contradicting himself again.
• PRO never clarifies what metric of "lack of use" necessitates removal as an option.
If there was a speed limit of 100 MPH on the high way and most people went only 60 MPH, then clearly this speed limit would be unnecessary (should someone actually go 100 MPH and endanger people).
• This metaphor informs CON's argument nicely.  If this highway has been graded to be safe for speeds of 100mph (Eastern Arizona, for example), then I want the option to drive 100mph and I don't care what "most people" do.  Sure, most of the time I might only be driving 80mph but I want to default to maximum freedom within reasonable precautions like safe speed limits and minimum regulation, particularly if the only advantage is to satisfy conformity.
• PRO fails to defend his analogy.
My opponent ADMITS that the debateart default is 10,000 characters, and has not given evidence that people actively use and have good debates using most, if not all, 30,000 characters.
• Again, SEE =>  PRO2: Debate.org's set example
• PRO never addresses CON's concern that we not format debates only because "that's the way they did it in DDO."
I dare my opponent to refute me. I dare him to use even at least 25,000 of the 30,000 allowed characters. If he can show us that he (or maybe some other debater) needs 6,000 words worth each round to prove something, then he has made his point. But 30,000 characters is simply too much, and too absurd.
• PRO concedes this debate if CON can show VOTERs that CON needs a 30,000 character debate to prove something.
• Let this argument provide the requested demonstration since CON is obliged to use 30,000 characters in order to prove PRO wrong.
• PRO failed to concede as expected after CON "has made his point."  Not all 30,000 character debates are absurd.
It's like the famous quote by Ernest Rutherford: "an alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid".
• The attribution is anecdotal at best and generally appears as a critique of Einstein (who himself is sometimes attributed the quote).
• Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not easily understood by anybody, including bartenders.
• "Because the theory was so complex and abstruse (even today it is popularly considered the pinnacle of scientific thinking; in the early years it was even more so), it was rumored that only three people in the world understood it. There was an illuminating, though probably apocryphal, anecdote about this. As related by Ludwik Silberstein, during one of Eddington's lectures he asked "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity." Eddington paused, unable to answer. Silberstein continued "Don't be modest, Eddington!" Finally, Eddington replied "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is."
• But the Theory successfully predicted black holes, gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves and lensing, etc and so cannot be fairly said to have "no merit"
• The quote is disproved, whether Rutherford said it or not.
• By extension, PRO's claim that a 30,000 character argument is similarly meritless, is likewise disproved.
• PRO's plan would exclude the Einsteins of debating from our site.
CONCLUSION
Voters, which do you prefer?
• PRO finishes with an argument for preference but PRO consistently ignores the fact CON's position does not require any choice or application of preference.
• If debaters prefer a 10,000 character debate, that option is already available.
• If readers don't want to read a 30,000 character argument, they can ignore it.
• VOTERs should opt for choice.
• Options are nice, even if some options seem impractical for the time being.
• Excess capacity allows space for stylistic variations,
• even if those are variations that haven't been tried or imagined yet.
• Why should we limit our options if the present cost of more options is minimal?
• Let's maintain a capacity for ultra large debates and see what style of debate makes effective use of the option.
• PRO's plan wants us to limit out options, CON wants to preserve our present options.