Well, this is a good question. While there has been significant thought put into what character minimum if any should be required, we did decide on 50 characters as the minimum. Now, let's look at Twitter for a moment...does their 140 character maximum bother anybody? Hell yes it does! Don't think there aren't times I have to revise an argument so it meets the 50 character minimum..and yes, it is annoying. But, the limit while sometimes annoying really does help keep the quality of the posts up. BTW, if a post is that short maybe it should be a vote instead of an argument?

I do welcome all of your feedback,

Andy

No. (And while I'd like to leave it at that, I obviously cant, so.....)

This leaves open the possibility of one coming in and arguing from such childish arguments as, "No, you're wrong, cause I said so." About 33 characters, give or take a character. Entirely pointless, entirely meaningless, and entirely fallacious, but none the less something which I experience from ill minded people on a regular basis. Debating should be between individuals willing to take the time to think out their position and argue about it intelligibly. 50 characters, for all its annoyances, is not nearly as bad as it could be. (Note that my opening line, including the spaces and parentheses, is 71 characters, and 58 without the spaces. It took me nothing more than a moment to write.)

How can someone possibly debate something in under 50 characters? Without this limit there would just be small, mindless statements that require no thought. Debating could not exist if there was no thought in the world so if you want to go on something that does not require a 50 characters, go on Create Vote or something.

Who cares, you just put a massive space between two words and you can have as little as two characters ;)