Instigator / Pro
Points: 1

This Debate is Stupid

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
User_2006
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
100
Contender / Con
Points: 3
Description
"stupid" definition: having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
This debate: this exact argument we are having
Burden of proof is shared
Round 1
Published:
this debate is stupid because I can't even refute my opponent. Also the character limit is too short.
Published:
Accepting a debate is not stupid. An ability and desire to debate demonstrate real intelligence.
Added:
--> @truthbomb
Did you come from DDO? Because this is how DDO verifies.
Contender
#13
Added:
Cool, I thought it might involve a verified phone number or something.
#12
Added:
--> @truthbomb
Pretty much you need to complete two debates or play a game of Mafia, then you can vote.
#11
Added:
How do I vote?
#10
Added:
oh, not bad...
Instigator
#9
Added:
Okie, it is intentional.
Contender
#8
Added:
100 characters?? That is not enough to unleash my true potential. I usually write 2000 characters in a normal debate on a good day.
Contender
#7
Added:
Defining your terms is a very smart move in any debate...wait a minute...
#6
Added:
Alrighty. Have fun!
#5
Added:
This time, I am not being the semantic man I had been. Being pragmatic is rather useful in this debate.
Contender
#4
Added:
Semantically. Every debate is stupid.
Stupid
Having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
Only if we become omniscient is any debate not stupid. But then again, it would be stupid to have a debate if you are omniscient. Unless you just want a non omniscient being to realize they are stupid.
This would be better debate, i think.
#3
Added:
I know this may seem like an easy win for me, but strong disagreement exists.
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @seldiora
I suggest making it two rounds, as single rounds deny you any chance to make dumb replies, in turn automatically dropping every point con raises. Which yes is stupid, but perhaps too stupid to give you the win you seek.
#1
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
I genuinely don't understand Con's argument. This wasn't a question of whether or not accepting the debate was stupid. Also, his second sentence is not a sentence, it seems to be leading somewhere but never gets there.
Pro wins because Pro gives two clear cut ways that the debate is supposedly stupid:
1) character count being too short
2) that Pro can't defend against Con's rebuttals
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
User_2006 demonstrated that even with a 100-character limit, he could make a point that had some intelligence/common sense
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
With the shared BoP, I feel con pulled it more in the direction of intelligence. Not to say it's brilliant, just that outright stupid was not proven, and intelligence was implied.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
It makes a valid point. accepting a debate and willing to debate is certainly a sign of intelligence. If pro used their character limit better then it would not come off as a complaint.