DebateArt should lower the 30,000 character per argument limit

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

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.

• "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."
  

• 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.
  

• 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.
  

• he pushes the burden of proof onto me, which is nonsense.
  

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.
  

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 (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."
  

• people seem satisfied by 10,000 characters per argument [because] it resembles the standard structure very closely
  

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? 
  
• PRO 's plan violates the current DebateArt Code of Conduct:
  

• "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.
  

• 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.
  

• 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.
  

• 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. 
  

• 10,000 characters like Debate.org. I don't see why not this should be kept the maximum amount of value.
  

• 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"
  

• 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.
  

• 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[edit]

Main article: Structure of policy debate

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

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate

• 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.
  

• 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?
  

 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.

• 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.

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.
  

• 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
  
• conservation of traditional practice.
  
• 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?
  

• 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,
  

• 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 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.
  

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.
  

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.
  
• DDO's own fan wiki describes DDO as:
  

• "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.
  

• OBJECTION: self-contradiction
  
• 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.
  

• My opponent is being illogical by trying to say that some people may be satisfied with 30,000 characters. 
  

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 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.
  

• 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.
  

• The Character per Argument limit is adjustable to any value between 100 and 30000. 
  

• 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?
  

• 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?
  

• 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?
  

• 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.
  

• OBJECTION: self-contradiction
  
• 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 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.
  

• 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. 
  

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 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
  

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.
  

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.
  

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.