The Instigator
NASCARfan
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
Ozzyhead
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

shortest argument ever

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 13 votes the winner is...
Ozzyhead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,716 times Debate No: 61657
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (13)

 

NASCARfan

Con

this is the shortest argument ever
Ozzyhead

Pro

No, this is

____________________________________________________________________________

My argument was 11 characters while my opponent's argument was 23 characters
Debate Round No. 1
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
ar"gu"ment noun
: a statement or series of statements for or against something*

a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point*

A reason or matter for dispute or contention:*

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

So clearly the term argument is a little ambiguous here. So one statement CAN be an argument. The reason is self-evident.

Q:"What is the shortest argument ever?"
A: This is the shortest argument ever.

Con answered the question posed as the debate topic/title.

By your logic of "argument[S]" Pro failed this too. Meaning voting for him would be equally against DDO criteria.

Shall we recap...Con has:
A complete sentence
A clear side to the debate "(What is the) shortest argument ever"
Self-evident reasoning to his claim (by size of the argument being minuscule"

And you calling every "illiterate bastard and dumb chucks" because your "serene" panties are in one big bunch.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Argument " an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident." http://en.wikipedia.org...

Con never gave a reason why for his statement. Pro did. Con did not meet the requirements of any formal debate nor did his statement satisfy the DDO criteria: "Who made more convincing arguments?" Plural, mind you.

Provide all the rigmarole you want, people are starting to see the fallacy in Con's words.

I can call you a dumb fhuck & still remain serene. Remember that next time I do. Peace.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
"This is the shortest argument ever"
This = Subject
Is=verb

This- refers to the ARGUMENT(pronoun)
is- verb for the subject of the sentence THIS (verb)
the- article referring to the object of the sentence ARGUMENT (article)
shortest - adjective describing the object of the sentence ARGUMENT (adjective
argument - object of the sentence THIS (noun)
ever - adverb describing adjective SHORTEST (adverb)

This sentence holds every criteria, and more, to be a complete sentence. It is not a fragment.

The debate title/resolution: Shortest Argument ever
is referring to who has the shortest argument in this debate. (ever could mean every debate of all time, but per Con's first round, it was referring to the shortest argument in this given debate.)

As to affirming a side, Con said "this is the shortest argument ever". Therefore he is arguing on the side he has the shortest argument in the debate.

To which Pro refuted their's was the shortest argument in the debate. Pro should have lost this debate because more characters were used in Pro's round/argument.

Not counting spaces
Con used 13 characters.
Pro used 74 (not counting the under-lines)

(I don't understand where Pro got 23 characters from)

Pro could have simply put: "No, this is." and would have won the debate as this is only 9 characters long.

However, Pro decided to type much more, and clarify the argument as well, thus putting over the 13 character limit to qualify as the shortest argument.

Shadowking, please calm yourself.

Con did write a complete sentence, and had picked a clear side to the argument, which had an opposing side.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Making a neutral statement that lacks both a subject & predicate is not an argument with a resolution and case.

Can anyone of you illiterate bastards tell me what is the subject & predicate is in this fragmented sentence?
"this is the shortest argument ever"
Dumb fhucks, an affirmative debate--like a complete sentence--must have a subject & predicate; in debate terms a case & resolution. His case is "the shortest argument ever" so what the fhuck is his resolution? It cannot be his case, you morons.

Arguments with a case & resolution
Red is [c] a color [r].
Jennifer Lawrence has [c] a sweet-tasting vagina [r].
Jesus Christ was [c] a Jewish homo [r].
Note: The resolution is both the entire statement AND the predicate.
This is [c] the shortest argument ever [r].
What is "the shortest argument ever"? The fragment? How, it is an incomplete resolution because there is no case being made.
This is the shortest argument ever---is equivalent to a debate phrased like this:
1. This is an apple Subject, no predicate/resolution, no case
2. There is air in that " " " "
3. That should be a victory " " " "

Saying "this is the shortest argument ever" is not an argument because it is not proving an opinion "supported by evidence" http://www.compuhigh.com...
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
Con wins, NASCARfan!! *cheers*

reason being, He stipulated that this was not the longest debate ever. he won as his opponents argument.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Yes it is.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
NASCARfanOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Most of the voters are rattling off semantics. So let's play Semantics 101. 1st, Con did not provide an argument of any topic. If he had simply wrote "I win" he'd truly be the victor because there isn't anything Con could write that would be argumentative & shorter. 2nd, Pro's explanation is not PART of his argument, but it IS his argument. Pro wins with 76 characters, It could've been even shorter had he thought it out: "No, I win: my argument--49 characters; Con's--34." And picked up S&G pts for capitalization & punctuation. 3rd, I humbly ask the Con voters to reevaluate you vote, Pro is the winner based on your own semantic judgment.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
NASCARfanOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used more total characters in his only round of the debate.
Vote Placed by IronCurx 2 years ago
IronCurx
NASCARfanOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a convincing argument, and con's argument was refuted.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
NASCARfanOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Weird how such a troll topic became so popular. Might as well join the Bandwagon! But seriously, the resolution was proven false, therefore con wins (Con loses conduct for choosing the wrong stance)
Vote Placed by RichardCypher 2 years ago
RichardCypher
NASCARfanOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Revised my vote, Shadow King is correct, Con has not made an argument, Pro did, so Pro's argument in essence is shortest since Con has none.
Vote Placed by bhealey 2 years ago
bhealey
NASCARfanOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: cons was shorter
Vote Placed by NoahMuns 2 years ago
NoahMuns
NASCARfanOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: la
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
NASCARfanOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: his was shorter
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
NASCARfanOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Self evident arguments need no further explanation. Semantic debate, but con got it.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
NASCARfanOzzyheadTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was shorter, but had bad grammar.