Anything Can Be Funny

Definitions It isn't about whether or not the dictionary definition of funny was different to what I stated. Definitions need to be custom for specific debates and bias definitions are the exact circumstances where definition revision is necessary. My opponent obviously doesn't understand the purpose of definitions in a debate. He apparently thinks that I defined 'can' because I didn't know what it meant. Can is an extremely important element of the resolution and the definition of it can alter the resolution and the winner entirely. Can needs to be defined because can is often mistaken for being the same as the word 'is'(for example). Firstly, it doesn't matter how many dictionaries agree with you and the fact that all of those dictionaries basically state the same thing implies dictionary bias. 3 dictionaries with the same definition. Suspicious? My opponent claims that my definition is false. This is not the case for this debate (as my opponent is clearly failing to undestand). For this debate, a 50%+ is necessary because if you use your definition then it includes a 1% chance. That is clearly a definition in your favour of the resolution, making it easier for you to argue. A 50% chance indicates equality on both sides of the debate and that is why my definition should be viewed as superior to my opponent's and my definitions should be viewed as a truism for this debate. I will now rearrange my opponent's arguments around because he makes the claim that his fantasy scenario is valid because of is violation theory. His violation counter rebuttal is provided below so I will merely switch these around in order to make it easier for my opponent and voters. Benign Violation Theory Con's (my) reasoning: a) A new definition of can The new definition still stands, therefore this is invalid. b) The fact that they haven't actively proven that anybody can believe anything also proves their argument invalid (for now). Let's put this into a more simple argument: Claim: The benign Violation theory is falseP1: A new definition of can has been proposedP2: My opponent has not proven that anybody can believe anytingP3: Can has been redifined to 50%+ C1: My opponent's rebuttal is refutedC2: The Benign Violation Theory is disproven P1 neccessitates P2. They are linked. Since there is a new definition of can, this means that my opponent must prove that anybody can believe anything (50%+). What my opponent has done is stated that no matter how unlikely it is, people can still believe anything. I have 2 problems with this argument:a) It isn't sourced.b) It includes the word can, which means 50%+Fantasy ScenarioThis is essentially a failed argument by my opponent. P1 neccessitates P2 in this new argument. Observe ...P1: The fantasy scenario is correct because the Benign Violation Theory is correctP2: The Benign Violation Theory is correctC1: I win the debate. This is essentially my opponent's argument. I have proven the violation theory incorrect. Therefore, the first premise fails. Since P1 necessitates P2 the whole argument fails. The conclusion isn't met and this argument fails.EvidenceMy opponent concedes that they are sad and the definition of funny is almost the opposite of sad. The definition was agreed upon by my opponent in the previous round. This contradicts his whole point and turns the argument against him.I wont respond to my opponent's conclusion becauseit doesn't provide anything new to the debate. Again, the conlusion is dependant on the argument that he has provided which have been refuted by me. ConclusionThis is my conclusion (not a rebuttal to his). My opponent has dropped both of my contentions deeming them irrelevant because they are refuted by his arguments. My opponent is shooting himself in the foot by stating this. In any debate, people think that their contentions refute their opponent's argument. The point is that you don't know if your arguments will be refuted so you respond to each contention individually anyway. My burden is currently being met because there has been no evident analysis of my arguments by my opponent since they have not been responded to. My opponent is now arguing for a neutral debate. The best that he can hope for is a tie vote. His burden cannot be met without mine being met. If we both meet our burdens the it is a neutral result.