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

After 4 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
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.

-->
@Barney
@PressF4Respect
@User_2006
@shadow_712

Thanks to you all for voting

-->
@Barney

Something between 5000 and 8000 would be an improvement.

What does everyone think would be the ideal default character limit?

I would also like to add to my RFD the following:
“Pro did not define the BOP in the description and first round. Con did so in his opening round. Since Con defined the BOP first, the BOP for the entire debate is the one that Con defined.”

-->
@Username

Seldiora should be elected into the hall of fame if he defeated the undefeatable.

The great Oromagi himself is down by one :O

damn but its hard to get a vote around here

-->
@fauxlaw

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************

fauxlaw
2 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Argument: Pro's argument carried on for 3 rounds by comparison to live, verbal debate durations. Con's argument demonstrated [by actual proof] that the DebateArt format, and even Con's sourcing of Debate.com, is a written format. Being different formats, the attempted comparison fails. Also, by pro's round 1 challenge to Con to argue even a 25,000-character round, Con met the challenge, exceeding 25K, and reaching a full 29,790-character-with-spaces argument, for which, pro challenged, would prove Con's point. Additionally, Con's argument that a 30,000-character limit does not imply that a debater must uses all 30,000 characters in any given argument was unsuccessfully rebutted by Pro, as capably demonstrated by Con's round 1, an argument of < 3,300 characters. Strictly by the numbers Pro challenged, Con successfully met the challenge, and exceeded it in one round, and limited it in another. Clearly, on this point alone, Con wins the points, but the prior voting observation is also won by Con.
Sourcing: pro used sources unrelated to DebateArt format. I consider these sources to be irrelevant to this debate. Con used credible sources within the construct of DebateArt's format. Points to Con.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro exhibited bad form by challenging Con in round 1, offering that Con would make is point by meeting the challenge, and then refused to acknowledge Con met the challenge, and instead complained that Con used copy/paste rather than summarize points to redfuce argument character count. No such reduction in argument/rebuttal is required to minimize the argument, and the challenge did previously prohibit copy/paste. Point to Con.

-->
@User_2006

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: User_2006 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:4; 4 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
**************************************************

User_2006
5 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Con has dropped all Pro's arguments and Pro hadn't. Pro also concedes before the formal procedure of the debate began as he clearly put 30,000 as the limit then doesn't use it. Seldiora, You have become the very thing you swore to destroy.

I would vote but I simply CBA to read a 30,000 character round, so I will not.

-->
@oromagi

this is checkmate.

but whether for you or for me, I do not know.

-->
@User_2006

oro has already been defeated in debate.org

I'm with Oromagi on this one. Example: A restaurant offers an all-you-can-eat menu. How do they stay in business? It's a simple construct: the great majority of people will not eat everything on the menu for the simple reason that they have a finite volume they can consume in one sitting, and the menu is often in excess of most people's allotted volume. They may be able to eat two complete entrees with a typical two sides, plus a bottomless drink, and that suffices. The one or two in a day who can do not bury the restaurant in debt becaise there may actually be more people who frequent such a restaurant than otherwise would, just because of the offer, and their numbers more than compensate for the one or two who actually can consume more than the typical customer.
So, if one is allowed to use more characters/spaces than another, so what? As Oromagi argues, just because it is allowed [30K characters/spaces, for example] does not mean one is compelled to use that quantity. The world has enough limiters and limitations for no purpose other than to impose control. Argue dfor your wn limitations; they're yours.

-->
@seldiora

Keep this in mind: You could be the first person on the internet to defeat Oro.

-->
@seldiora

Exactly, I agree with you. 30,000 is overkill

-->
@Crocodile

maybe, but 10,000 more than that seems overly reliant on quotes and sources

-->
@seldiora

It's really annoying providing quotes and rebuttals, if the character limit is, say, 7,500 characters. I think the character limit should be 15000 or maybe 20000

since it's the top rated debater on the website, I'm going for something a little tricky...

As a voter, I can imagine pro making a 30,000 character word salad argument to showcase their point. On the other hand, con could counter with a mere 1,000 characters of that to show the character limit isn't what causes that problem.

-->
@seldiora

"Characters per argument
30,000"

How ironic.