'Hello' is a term used for greeting.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 20 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Used as a greeting or to begin a telephone conversation.
HulloHello might be derived from hullo, which the American Merriam-Webster dictionary describes as a "chiefly British variant of hello",[16] and which was originally used as an exclamation to call attention, an expression of surprise, or a greeting. Hullo is found in publications as early as 1803.[17] The word hullo is still in use, with the meaning hello.[18][19][20][21][22]
to welcome someone with particular words or a particular action, or to react to something in the stated way:to welcome someone with particular words or a particular action, or to react to something in the stated way:The men greeted each other warmly.
- something that is said to attract someone's attention
- said to someone who has just said or done something stupid, especially something that shows they are not noticing what is happening
- an expression of surprise
Poor performance from Con, despite hello in certain parts of the world not being seen as a term used for greeting, it certainly can be and is used as a greeting.
CON's single argument was weak in reasoning and effort. PRO showed that the defined term is sometimes used as asserted by thesis. The fact that some others don't use the term that way in no way refutes the validity of that usage by some. ARGs to PRO.
Wow, single round debate, RM offered a low effort win (due to pro being unable to defend any point challenged), but no contest to the presented argument. Con kind of attempted a classic Wylted K of begging for votes, but put zero effort into it.
Arguments:
Pro proved that hello is used for a greeting. Con countered this by saying that other languages don't use the word 'Hello' for greeting. However, this argument does not work, as 'Hello' would still be used as a greeting by some people (English speakers). Thus, the argument point goes to Pro.
Sources:
Pro used sources. Con didn't. Sources go to Pro.
Conduct:
"Poor debate topic, therefore I won't put any effort into it."
This is borderline, but not egregious enough to give the conduct point to Pro.
Pro is the only one who provided any argument and used sources. Con used a low-level semantical exploit and that will mean conduct is lost.
Overall RM remains victorious.
No. I vote objectively. If one makes poor arguments, he loses.
First, I don't care about this website so you can do that too. Also, if you don't like that, vote for me. I will probably be leaving this site within a few days.
You realize RM is using you as a free win farm, right?
Im debating you imbecile
Just what, are you doing?
lmao this is kind of ridiculous