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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I personally prefer shorter debates on every level. Maybe it should be lowered. However, this debate does not point to that conclusion...

1. Pro first claims that 30k is in violation of some rules.. but these are not rules here, so I am confused as to the relevance. Comparatively, con does a good job appealing to the need to innovate.

2. Pro did better by arguing it as unnecessary wasteful, and used con's R2 to support this (I dislike that he previously demanded to see such a long argument, but that's pretty minor). On this con did well in catching pro calling for some of the cross-examination in comments, and then pro stabbing himself in the foot while trying to be concise changing the meaning of statements. ... On this one, I do side with pro, as I massively prefer conciseness.

3. Con offers that it's a choice, which is not forced on any instigator via not being the default. This is a slam dunk for con. Pro's speed limit metaphor failed to refute this, and he dropped it anyway once con flipped it to favor safe driving at speeds up to the limit even if a driver wishes to not drive at the limit.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments:
1. The gist of Pro's argument is that the average argument does not go to 30,000 characters, describing those that do as "overkill". However, Con pointed out how the 30,000 character limit is simply a maximum, and that it is adjustable to whatever size needed. Pro didn't directly counter this point, only saying that debates usually do not exceed 10,000 characters. Con countered by saying that there can indeed be debates over 10 or even 20 thousand characters in length and provides the example of a research paper that is 2200 pages in length. Pro misinterprets this (either deliberately or otherwise) as Con wanting there to be a debate argument of that length, and that Con is also arguing for unlimited characters. Con points out that this is a strawman argument, to which Pro does not reply.

2. Pro uses DDO as a reason for why DART ought to lower its character limit but never substantiates why DDO should be used as the benchmark.

Overall, as neither of Pro's initial arguments stood at the end, Con wins the arguments section.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

First of all great job by both sides, very convincing arguments
Arguments: I liked the gish-galloped argument made by PRO in the first round, and cited research papers to make his point but CON certainly made cogent counter-arguments by stating options are for the common folk to choose from, further tried to disprove PRO by stating examples of 2 research papers,I would have voted for CON had he used average Research Paper size to disprove his opponent by quoting an average or median size of research paper from a source rather than citing extremes. Exceptions are not examples. Till this point I was still in favour of CON , since his options are good argument was relatable and agreeable.
I was inclined towards CON most of the time when he exposed PRO's self contradictions and effectively cited how cross-examinations in comment section is unviable, but in one of the CON's examples of his previous debate,"The Bible Created Western Civilization Part 1: Humanity, Rationality and Technology", he said he needed 28,000 argument to make his point, PRO went into specifics of the debate, and pointed out " 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".
Which was exactly the point even I had voted in favour of CON in that debate, I really liked this point . This had me inclining towards PRO again as he stood by what he argued for a small summarized ,readable argument. CON lost argument points firstly he did not defend this point in R3 when PRO had used a good chunk of his argument in this point, secondly gish-galloped point made by PRO in his conclusion in R3 was proved by CON not defending his previous debate in his R3 and using a huge number of counter arguments and still missing to address such a sizeable portion of PRO's argument when his entire case of using long argument was based around the need for quoting exact texts of the opponents.
Conduct : Conduct to PRO because CON used the word" bullshit" in R2, I was in favour of CON of the point he was making about shared burden of proof , but I mostly like language formal and free from verbal pejoratives, outright refusal to accept an argument can be made by using other better terminology such as ," I vehemently oppose it" or " the argument does not make any sense".
Secondly, in R3 CON stated PRO has dropped the Gish- galloping argument whereas PRO's ending in R3 was based on it , how can an argument used in conclusion of R3 considered as dropped? This is falsifying stance of an opponent. Not proper conduct.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I give the argument points to Con. Pro used evidence from the average oral debate, but Con has clearly made a clear cut from DDO(DART) to formal oral debate. Con also stated that the upper limit is of choice, and he has proved his point by making a constructive argument with more than 20,000 characters.