The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Does a straw have one hole or two holes? Or no holes at all?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 767 times Debate No: 109770
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I believe there are no holes and the straw is merely a hollow cylinder with two openings.


I accept. I'll argue that a straw, indeed, has holes. Since he didn't start, I might as well kick things off. Good luck to my opponent!

With that, my argument itself is relatively simple: I will argue that straws by definition have holes. So let's begin.

First, Merriam Webster defines a hole as "an opening through something"

Second, defines a hole in the same way

Third, Oxford's online dictionary defines hole as "a hollow place within a solid body or surface" as well as "an aperature passing through something."

Fourth, the Cambridge dictionary defines hole as "an empty space or opening in an object."

These definitions prove that straws have holes for multiple reasons:

First, prefer definitions over individual opinion or analysis. Individuals can come up with definitions for anything that are vastly different from what the actual definition is and say that it is correct. Dictionaries, however, contain the definitions that are socially and publically agreed upon, allowing communication to actually occur.

Second, intuitively it wouldn't make sense for straws to not have at least two holes. Otherwise it would be functionally useless in it's intended purpose.

And thirdly, my opponent blatantly said that it has two holes. Effectively, a hole and an opening are synonymous.

With that, I'll pass it over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes, I understand, but is water wet?


Thanks to my opponent for his/her response. I'll be extending mine and then replying to his/hers.

First, extend out my argument that definitely straws have holes. I vote multiple dictionaries that all confirm that straws do, indeed, have holes.

Then, extend out my reasons for why judges should prefer my definitions over his/her analysis. That 1) having socially accepted definitions allow people to communicate successfully, and that's the role that dictionaries fulfill, 2) that intuition would say that if a straw didn't have holes, that it'd not really be a straw at that point, and 3) that (s)he essentially conceded that straws have holes by saying that straws have "openings" which is essentially synonymous with "holes".

None of these argument were ever responded to. Don't allow him/her to make responses to these arguments in the last round for multiple reasons:

First, that it's unfair for me since I am unable to make new arguments in my last round. Reciprocity would say that it's only fair for him/her to also not make new arguments in the last round.

Second, (s)he had more than plenty of room to make responses if (s)he so, and made none. It would be unfair to allow him/her to hold all of his/her arguments until the end so that I have as little time as possible to respond to them.

With that, I'll address his/her response.

My opponent asked me if water was wet. There are a few responses.

1) This isn't topical to the resolution my opponent created. This should not carry any weight within the round.
2) This isn't responsive to any of the arguments I presented.
And 3) I'm actually not sure. My initial thought was a fast yes, but I think there's a certainly plausible line of reasoning for why water wouldn't be wet (that being that water itself isn't wet, but rather the wet we feel from water is from coming into physical contact with water). I wouldn't call my opinion super reasonable because I don't science good, but that's what I would say to that question.

With that, I'll pass things over to my opponent again.
Debate Round No. 2


Ummmmmmm, Well I forfeit. You convinced me.



My opponent gracefully conceded. Thanks to my opponent for making this debate. And thank you all for reading!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
Unless you consider that holes have directions.
*Up* or *in* or *out of* or *down* a hole must have a relative starting point, so when you determine which direction you're going, you also determine how many holes there are.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Also, con gives proof by definition.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.