Having bad table manners makes you a less liked person.

Let's start with the definitions. I agree with my opponent's definitions of 'less' and 'liked' (though, as an aside, 'liked' should be "regarded with favor. .. " rather than "to regard with favor. .. "). I also agree with his definition of 'table manners', though I would note that many things that are considered table manners are more "conventional behavior" than "behavior expected of people". I take serious issue with my opponent's definition of 'person', however. The concept that personhood relies on cultural expectations is seriously flawed; indeed, you have to dig pretty deep into the definitions for 'person' found on dictionary. com to find anything like that. Rather, these definitions seem to be in general consensus that 'person' just means 'human being', so that's what I'll stick to. Now to my opponent's case: I. Wording of the resolution. A. My opponent says that "to have bad table manners would be to have bad behavior while dining. " Not at all, actually; to have bad table manners means not to conform to traditional standards of acceptable behavior while dining. In other words, it means that your behavior is 'bad' in the eyes of tradition; this doesn't make the behavior bad, per se. B. No problems here, but I'll examine the PRO's burden while looking at his second point. C. No worries about defining 'person' as an insect, but see above to see what I think of the definition the PRO presented. II. Examples. I have two major problems with this whole point. First, my opponent's examples are just that, examples. My opponent fails to look at bad table manners in general, and discuss why they would make someone less liked. The resolution doesn't say, "There are particular bad table manners that can make someone less liked"; it requires much more than that from the PRO. If the PRO fails to prove the statement made by the resolution, and instead focuses on particular instances of it, then he has not come anywhere near fulfilling his resolutional burden. Second, all of these examples come from Western (and particularly American) concepts of table manners. These examples cannot be applied to the resolution. It doesn't say, "Having bad table manners as defined by Americans makes you a less liked person if you're eating in America". Again, my opponent is trying to constrict the debate, not only by just looking at particular examples instead of the broader issue, but also by focusing solely on American examples. III. Studies. After quite a bit of research, I've given up on trying to find this study. I ask my opponent to cite it next round so I can look into it. However, I can make an important line of attack based on what my opponent said here. Apparently, this study shows that table manners can set a bad first impression. I could argue against that, but it's not necessary, because this doesn't have anything to do with the resolution. My opponent himself said that he must prove that "your respect or how people favor you, will be put to a smaller extent, amount, or degree" if you have bad table manners (IB). However, in this point, my opponent claims that table manners can keep someone from becoming more liked; this is very different from making someone less liked. People not wanting to get to know you and like you better is not the same as people losing favor or respect for you; they never had it in the first place, because they don't know you yet (since we're talking about first impressions). The reaction of a person who likes someone else upon finding out that that person has bad table manners was apparently not what was being studied, according to what my opponent said – but that's what we're really talking about in this resolution. This entire point, then, falls, as completely nonresolutional. IV. "Resolutional Analysis" about murder. This point is just plain ridiculous. My opponent's own definition of table manners says that we're talking about behavior "while dining" – this implies that the behavior has something to do with dining. Murder is a completely different thing. That wouldn't be simply unconventional or unexpected; it would be flat-out wrong, for reasons having nothing to do with dining or etiquette. This line of "reasoning" should not be accepted. V. "Observational Argument". My opponent makes the claim that "Generally bad behavior leads to less respect, and that doesn't stop while eating. In society you are expected to behave in an appropriate way. If you fail to act in such an appropriate way, you will not be liked as much, and you will be respected less. " My opponent again equates bad table manners to bad or inappropriate behavior; I've already shown why that's flawed (see IA). But at least, here, it sounds at first as though my opponent may be getting into a point that actually touches on the resolution. But then, to back up his claims (which is certainly necessary), he reverts back to the particular examples he presented earlier, which I have already proven to be flawed, since they don't take into consideration table manners in general, or even examples from places other than America. He doesn't add any additional analysis to try to connect his particular examples to the point he's trying to make; he just puts the general observations of the first few sentences in close proximity to his examples and hopes the reader will assume they're tied together somehow. To make matters worse, he uses his own feelings on table manners as "proof". This point is simply full of issues. Overview – Basically, my opponent has tried to prove the resolution through looking at particular examples of it rather than the statement itself; discussing how table manners can keep someone from becoming more liked rather than how they can make someone less liked; and attempting to make connections between points simply by putting them next to each other, rather than through logical analysis. My opponent's case is flawed, and he has failed to uphold the resolution. Now onto my own case. I only have a couple thousand characters left, so this will be fairly short. 1. Cultural Relativism. a. Table manners are not universal. It's no secret that cultures around the world vary from each other, and this certainly extends to the realm of table manners. For example, many table manners in Asian countries deal with the use of chopsticks; and in France, using salt and pepper is seen as an insult to the cook's abilities. Because of the wide variety of table manners worldwide, looking at American examples and ignoring the rest of the world fails to hold up the resolution. The resolution is, above all, an incredibly broad statement – too broad to be upheld with particular examples. b. Table manners often conflict with one another. When looking at table manners around the world, there are many examples of things that are seen as good table manners in one place, and bad table manners in another. For example, in Japan, good table manners involve consuming soup straight from the bowl, while in America good table manners dictate the use of a particular type of spoon to eat soup. Acting with any culture's set of good table manners requires violation of many table manners according to other cultures. Therefore, a person with good table manners by one culture's standards actually has horrendous table manners when all the table manners of the world are considered – yet they are certainly not less liked as a result. 2. Acting against standards actually makes you MORE liked by some. Rebellion against traditions, institutions, and standards is all the rage these days. By having bad table manners, you show that you are not going to be held into a tightly-defined set of standards for 'proper' living. Many people these days respect that greatly. I've run out of characters, but I've managed to get in all the major points I wanted. Thanks! !! !! ! !