Con has argued there is no "measure" of fun, but there can be. Let me lay it out. Merely because I avoid Trent means it's my personal decision which may or may not have other factors into play other than just enjoyment.
Concise = addiction
We see people stuck on social media for hours on end. From here
, it's clear that FB posts are best with 80 characters or fewer, description of 18 words, 70~100 characters for twitter, 130~150 characters for Instagram, 200 character limit for Instagram, so on and so forth. Now then, each of these posts' performances are in the thousands within views and reposts, displaying the power of the social media. Why would people bother if they didn't enjoy the posts, and feel like they gather attention? Now, not even Trent's arguments are as low as 200 characters [approximately 40 words], but the way the arguments are laid out, it's easy to imagine each individual backing getting thousands of reposts on social media. It would be addicting and fun to look at.
My personal writing fits the more formal essays, clear as day from my samples in debating. I doubt my long arguments would get as much reposts as Trent's from this.
Only interested people would debate anyone else
It's hard to imagine someone who is interested in every topic in the world. It doesn't make sense. No one can be an expert in all topics. This article
lists three people who have gained top search results by providing short and concise explanations of science, religion, and Disney. Longer answers prove that you are an expert on the topic, but once again, if you give too much information, people may begin to raise eyes and be misinformed. Take conspiracy theorists, for example. Given only 3,000 characters, I doubt any of them could defeat Trent0405, as conspiracies are unfounded and require such massive leaps of logic. On the other hand, given 30,000 arguments worth of gish gallop, and it would be extraordinary of a chore to try to disprove each and every one of their absurd arguments.
Because DebateArt is informal enough to use usernames and not real names, I can conclude this is a casual debating site where the majority is not necessarily passionate enough to go outside of Trent's usual character limit. As such, Trent, being well informed (winning most of his debates) and providing decent topics that entertain similar to social media, he would be able to keep people's attention and prevent it from being a chore. Remember how intelligence_06 conceded a debate in the tournament because it felt like a chore. There was just so much research he had to do, so many arguments he had to prove, in a topic that he didn't care about. If he was up against Trent, he would no doubt be invigorated by the small amount of arguments, however "stacked" the sources are in Trent's favor. He would be far less likely to concede in that theoretical debate. Due to DART's nature, it's clear that Trent is the most enjoyable user to debate against.