Having bad table manners makes you a less liked person.

I never insulted his intelligence – indeed, if calling an argument nonresolutional or confronting the logical flaws with it is insulting to one's intelligence, then that happens in any meaningful debate. I also never asked him to address every single table manner of every single culture, and I agree that that would be a ridiculous burden. Indeed, all I asked is that he confront the nature of table manners and what inherently makes someone less liked as a result of having bad table manners, rather than particular examples. Examples can be used to illustrate a point, but not to make a point all on their own, which is what my opponent did in his first round (II). Now onto his case: I. Wording. A. My opponent conceded the point I made here later in the debate – in (IV) he says bad table manners mean "inappropriate behavior expected of people while dining". As I said, this doesn't make the behavior bad per se, just bad in the eyes of convention, like a rich white southerner not owning slaves in the 1800s. C. The only definition I presented was that 'person' means "human being"; I cited it as coming from dictionary. com, because it was a composite of all the definitions I found there. I figured that would be enough, but I can post the definitions as they appear on the site for clarity. Person from dictionary. com's own dictionary - "a human being, whether man, woman, or child" from the American Heritage Dictionary - "A living human. " from WordNet - "a human being" from the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary - "a human being" I think it's rather clear that simply "a human being" works as a good composite of these definitions. The point I was making here is that my opponent's definition was flawed in that it dealt with cultural expectations and the like, whereas you have to dig deep into the definitions from several dictionaries on dictionary. com to find anything like that. II. Examples. Again, I never asked that my opponent discuss every table manner in the world – just that he discuss table manners in general rather than particular examples, especially if those examples deal only with one culture. My opponent does address this here, saying that if someone has bad table manners, they will be less liked " because they did something that was out of order, and not proper". However, the only evidence my opponent has yet provided of this connection comes in (III), and I'll discuss that next. III. The Study. My point here in my first round was that the study only linked bad table manners to a bad first impression, meaning they can stop someone from becoming more liked, rather than actively making them less liked, as the resolution claims. My opponent responds to this by saying that this bad first impression in fact will make the person hated by anyone who witnesses it. Thus, he has essentially changed his claim for the debate to saying that bad table manners make someone hated, and therefore less liked. However, he hasn't stated that the study showed outright hatred after witnessing bad table manners, so such a claim is merely speculation, and goes beyond the actual conclusion of the study – that bad table manners can set a bad first impression, which I have already dealt with. Furthermore, even if we accept that there are some people out there who may be moved to outright hatred of a person due to bad table manners, I think it would be safe to assume this would be a rather small number – and I'll get back to this later, in my case. IV. Murder and table cats. Again, I maintain, and my opponent hasn't denied, that murder goes far beyond bad table manners. And putting a cat on a table is just another particular example of something that could be seen as bad table manners, and again this point fails to make any claims about table manners in general. Furthermore, there are plenty of people out there who love cats, and wouldn't mind at all if someone put a cat on a table where they were eating. And who, honestly, would hate someone for putting a cat on a table? My opponent makes up a straw man argument later in this point, trying to preempt a cultural relativism argument on the merits of table cats; but I have no intention of making such a claim. V. Observational Analysis and Overview. If a point the PRO uses to back up the resolution is nonresolutional, then it absolutely does fall. If a point has analysis to back it up, but no clear connection between the point and the analysis, then it is undermined. If a point uses the debater's own feelings on the issue at hand, then it is fallacious. If it asks the reader to think about their own feelings on the issue, then it is fallacious. I don't see how making any of these claims about a point is abusive or taking the low road. If I said, "The sky is blue, therefore the resolution is untrue," my opponent would show how the blueness of the sky is nonresolutional, and how there is no connection between it and the conclusion that I made – and that wouldn't be abusive, taking the low road, or insulting my intelligence. My opponent has not shown "how Americans like each other less" for bad table manners – indeed, he changed this claim in (III) to saying that people hate each other for bad table manners. As I said, this was speculation far beyond what the study actually concluded; and even if it is true for some people, it's certainly not true for a very large percentage. Onward, to my case! 1. Cultural Relativism. a. Again, I never asked my opponent to look at every table manner in the world and discuss how it makes someone less liked. The importance of this point was to show that because of the wide variation worldwide, particular examples from American society are not sufficient to make a point. Basically, this goes back to what I've said several times before – that my opponent needs to look at table manners themselves in general, rather than particular examples. B. The resolution doesn't stipulate that we're talking about how liked a person is in their immediate surroundings. As an American, any time you eat with good table manners according to American customs, you are violating numerous standards of good table manners of numerous cultures around the world. And doing so doesn't make you less liked. If I eat soup with a spoon, it doesn't make the entire nation of Japan hate me, despite the fact that they would see it as bad table manners. Thus, there are a TON of examples of things people around the world do every day that are bad table manners in the eyes of SOMEONE, but no one comes to hate them as a result. Even if you agree with what my opponent has said everywhere else, I have provided thousands of counter-examples to the claim made by the resolution. 2. Rebellion, dude! My opponent has said that somewhere between 10% and 25% of people probably favor bad table manners, and between 75% and 90% of people favor good table manners. However, recall that the reasoning my opponent has provided for bad table manners making someone less liked is that it makes them hated. How many people, though, would you say would hate someone for bad table manners? 2%? 5%? I would certainly say it's probably no more than 10%. So let's consider this – as a high estimate, 10% of people would hate you for bad table manners, and as a low estimate, 10% of people would like you more for them. Therefore, even with a low estimate for the number of rebellious people, you end up right around just as liked as you were before. I hope my opponent addresses some of the resolutional and logical points I made about his case in his next round, rather than just saying that something that happens in any good debate is insulting or abusive. I don't think this has devolved to not being clean or fun, and I don't think it has to. Thanks!