The New 50-Character Minimum Argument
I just logged on to CreateDebate after about half an hour of trying to access the site, each time being rejected by a message saying that the site was down for maintenance. When I am able to get on, there is a new minimum length for an argument. Yes, a new minimum, it's not a simple 14 characters anymore.
If you don't believe me, go ahead and try it. The new minimum argument length on the site seems to be 50 characters, and if you try to submit an argument less than 50 characters, this message is displayed:
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
I, for one, know of a few people that might disagree with this new minimum. I'll be nice and keep them nameless.
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?
Agree with it
Side Score: 38
|
Disagree with it
Side Score: 17
|
|
|
|
4
points
I mostly agree with the new minimum. I believe that this will cut down on the number of dumb jokes and will create a need for well though-out arguments. I know that I got a bit caught up with the small, stupid jokes that seemed to be being made more often than real, intelligent arguments. Side: AGREE WITH IT
4
points
I'm not complaining. 50 characters really isn't all that much. I do however think there should be some kind of maximum length. I sometimes get replies that are so long I don't even feel like reading them. I mean, in a real debate they don't let people go on and on and on, because how can you argue with all of that. Side: AGREE WITH IT
Have you ever heard of a filibuster? Arguments in all forms of debate are routinely long, especially for an opening statement or a primary argument. If you don't have the attention span necessary to read a long argument then perhaps you should spend more time in JoeCavalry debate. Side: Disagree with it
Yes, I have heard of a filibuster. Here is one of the definitions: Delaying tactics, especially long, often irrelevant speeches given in order to delay progress or the making of a decision Don't get me wrong, I read them. And I'm pretty satisfied with my attention span thank you very much. I never said I didn't have the ability, just that it gets old after a while. Side: AGREE WITH IT
2
points
2
points
2
points
1
point
1.It will make people think of putting things down 2.It will make it so we know what people have to say about the arguements instead of just i agree (or disagree) ...and three we can now know what people do when they run out of things to say (such as use lots of periods or random words or even random thoughts) Side: AGREE WITH IT
1
point
|
2
points
Well, he may not be as screwed as you think. Usually, he posts five or six jokes per debate. If he just writes his jokes down when they come to him, he can just put all the jokes into one argument as soon as he has enough. Sure, it'll be harder, but he's either got to adapt or fail. Side: AGREE WITH IT
3
points
1
point
1
point
|