Outside of Video-based Debates, 100 character max each round is too few for arguments

Arg--Con used a simple syllogism which con did not refute. Pro also "half-conceded" in his round 2 saying one arg is not enough, in a debate but this debate says "100 character max each round is too few for arguments". Points to Con.

Sources-- I am leaning towards con on this. Pro, make sure your sources are on topic as your first three rounds were not really on topic.

Grammar-- Pro mainly included incomplete sentences that did not include simple words like "a an is" and look at his first round:

avg word 5 char, avg essay need at least 200~300 words [v.gd/argsh]. 100 char too few for good arg!!

Pro used more abbreviations and I had to read it over and over again to understand what he is trying to say.

Conduct--both did well.

Oro demonstrated that a simple syllogism can be a very concise and persuasive, Pro's rebuttal actually wound up conceding the whole point by implying that 100 characters can be enough for some debates despite it being inappropriate for most.

Argument: Con's arguments were clever and successful diversions from the debate proposal. Pro's arguments were thereby successfully rebutted. Points to Con.

Sources: Cons sources were all on point; reliable. Pro had but two sources, both were off topic to the debate proposal. One's subject was essay, not debate. The other was about benefits of debating; character count had no relevance. Points to Con

S&G and Conduct both tied.

Con managed a syllogism with Socrates at only 65 characters. Pro's challenge fell short of dismissing that.

Honestly, any number will be pretty arbitrary.

A very cogent argument was put forth by CON, the very act of PRO making a convincing argument would undermine his case, I inclined with PRO that informal debates undermine the arguments porduced by both sides untill CON made the above mentioned argument.
I think CON saved the best for last, he made a fresh argument in the last round when PRO cannot furnish a rebuttal, thereby losing points for conduct.

Arguments: Con. Con is the only one that made acceptable and complete arguments. Pro did only make the documents speak for itself with no logic within it, so it counts not as an actual argument. Just copy-pasting document links does not make it valid unless you explain it. Con did it more than Pro.

Con also wrote complete arguments in 100 characters, which would mean Con fulfilled his BoP. Pro did not.

Sources: Con. Con used sources for most things that makes whatever he writes TRUE whereas Pro's sources are irrelevant: The first source of Pro merely presents the norm but ignores that this is no normal debate. The second is not an argument at all. On the other hand, Con presented relevant definitions and explanations that are relevant to and only to his brief arguments, which I consider sufficient.

S&G: Con. Con used complete words throughout whereas Pro used abbreviations which are a little less readable.

Conduct: Tie. Both persons did a good job trying to prove their sides.