CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
9
yes, it is very stupid no, it makes sense
Debate Score:19
Arguments:16
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes, it is very stupid (7)
 
 no, it makes sense (9)

Debate Creator

iLOVEjews(102) pic



Is the 50 character requirement on this site stupid?

yes, it is very stupid

Side Score: 10
VS.

no, it makes sense

Side Score: 9
4 points

i think it is very stupid because people dont put stupid answers very often, which is why they made it, and if your true answer is less than fifty then you have to add some other characters and it just looks stupid

Side: yes, it is very stupid

True iLovejews I am with you all the way its very very very stupid because you should not need a requirement for answering peoples debate like I been saying little opinions can be powerful and make sense.

Side: yes, it is very stupid
1 point

I agree, It is pretty frikken stupid and causes people to write muy more than needed..

N the people that dont write too much just copy and paste, "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."

Side: yes, it is very stupid
TERMINATOR(6781) Disputed
1 point

THEY DON'T WRITE TOO STUPID OF ANSWERS BECAUSE OF THE 50 CHARACTER LIMIT!

Side: no, it makes sense
lawnman(1106) Disputed
1 point

people dont put stupid answers very often

As a veteran at CD, I can attest to the fact you are clearly underestimating the non-intelligence of stupidity.

Prior to the arbitrary, 50 Character requirement, many of the now and then veterans were quite annoyed by commentary rebuttals that read something like: WHAT?, SO!, LOL, aldhfaljksdhf, and many others. Consequently, the base requirement that you now ridicule is the result of our annoyance. So, I guess you can thank us for your assessment of the 50 Character requirement, i.e., : ”people dont put stupid answers very often”.

Your welcome!

Side: no, it makes sense
1 point

It would make sense if they actually enforced it, but seeing as everyone ignores it there really is no point to having it.

Side: yes, it is very stupid
1 point

Sometimes the shortest answers are the most enlightening. I don't see why we should limit people from being concise.

Side: yes, it is very stupid
1 point

It does nothing to stop "stupid" comments. I've read stupid comments that were well over 100 characters long and I've read brilliant comments that were only two words long.

Besides, any idiot can figure out all you have to do to get your comment to submit regardless of the limit is to add a bunch of these things >>--------------------------------------

Side: yes, it is very stupid

No. It makes perfect sense.

It keeps the readers and the debaters from having to sift through innumerable useless comments (most often by teenagers) such as 'kewl' or 'rad'.

Essembly doesn't have such a limit, and people usually only write one or two words.

That's fine, Essembly is set up in such a manner that that doesn't matter, but CreateDebate is not.

Side: no, it makes sense
DaWolfman(3324) Disputed
1 point

I have seen some great rebuttals that required the writer to throw unnecessary characters in to fill the gap.

Even with this limit there are so many ways around it. If I want to respond with a simple LOL I can do so, just by copy and pasting the 'you need 50 characters' warning below my post.

Side: yes, it is very stupid
TERMINATOR(6781) Disputed
1 point

Even if some good arguments are under 50 characters, without that limit more people would be enticed to write 'kewl' or 'LOL' or 'rotfl'.

Side: no, it makes sense