Anything Can Be Funny

IMPORTANT NOTE Before I explain in great detail why none of my opponent's arguments hold any merit, I’d like to point out the fact that my opponent just made up his own definition for the word “funny.” He claimed that he had reason to do so because he thinks that my definition (the official definition of the word ‘funny’ which appears in the Oxford dictionary) gives me an unfair advantage in this debate. He also decided that he needed to define the word, “Can” and claimed that it meant, and I quote, “Highly Possibly is (50%+).”I guess I made the mistake of assuming that my opponent knew the definition of the word “Can.” :PFor anyone who is confused about this simple word, the word “Can” is used to express the possibility of something, not the probability of something.This truth can be seen as it is unanimously agreed upon by the three different reputable sources shown below:(1) The Oxford dictionary: “Can: used to say that it is possible for somebody/something to do something, or for something to happen”(2) Dictionary.reference.com:“Can: to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to”(3) Webster’s Dictionary:“Can: to be able to do, make, or accomplish”Needless to say, the word "can" absolutely does not mean "Highly Possibly is (50%+).” in any way and my opponent's desire to re-define this word just so he can change my argument is just silly. He should have known better than to think that this was a reasonable claim. However, because I am a nice person and I don't want to my opponent to keep whining about my "unfair advantage." of using the dictionary, I will allow my opponent's make-believe definition for the word "funny" to be used in place of the actual definition during this debate as his definition is essentially the same as the one I used, only slightly less... elegant ;)Once again, here is Con's definition (the one that will be used in this debate):Funny: Something that makes you laugh because you find something amusing.Alright, since that mess has now been sufficiently dealt with for the time being, I will move on to my rebuttals and such.Explanation Of The "Fantasy Scenario"Although it may have seemed awkward to some people, the scenario that I wrote was only there because I thought it would be a fun way to show how one might think the "slow and painful death of every body in the world's parents" to be funny.I already explained why anything (including the slow and painful death of everyone's parents) can be funny in the "arguments" section of my previous writing by using the Benign Violation Theory so Con's demand that I must now prove why the situation is funny has already been met. ...You're welcome Con :)Which brings me to my next rebuttal...Why Con Is Wrong In Thinking That He Can Disprove The Benign Violation TheoryJust to recap, here is what I said about the theory and how it proves that anything can be funny: "... The theory builds on work by a linguist, Tom Veatch, and integrates existing humor theories to propose that humor occurs when and only when three conditions are satisfied; that is, something is only "funny" if it can meet these three requirements:(1) a situation is a violation (the situation threatens one"s beliefs about how the world should be)(2) the situation is benign (something makes the situation okay)(3) both perceptions occur simultaneously.Here's a good example:Play fighting and tickling, which produce laughter in humans (and other primates), are benign violations because they are physically threatening, but harmless attacks.Can anything meet these three requirements and be considered funny? Even the slow and painful death of every body in the world's parents? Well, yes. Anything can meet these requirements, because the proven requirements for what makes something funny are all based on one"s own beliefs. Because anyone can believe ANYTHING they want, anything can be funny. It all depends on what you choose to think is a violation and what you choose to consider to be okay."Con gives two reasons for why he believes that my argument is invalid. I will now address both and why neither one is valid: Con's first reason "a) The new definition of can"This argument is invalid because one cannot change the definition of the word "can" as I have already pointed out. Con's second reasonb) The fact that they haven't actively proven that anybody can believe anything also proves their argument invalid (for now)." Anyone can believe anything they want because the only requirement in order to believe something is the power of choice. If you can think logically than you have the ability to choose what you believe. No matter how unlikely it is that someone may believe in something, they sill "can." Also, just to clarify, even if everyone doesn't have the power of choice (there may be people with mental illnesses that can't function that way) as long as just one person can choose to laugh at something because they find it amusing, than the statement, "anything can be funny" must be true.Sorry About Your EvidenceFinally, I'd like to point out the fact that neither of my opponent's arguments are valid. In Con's arguments he points out two things that he believes are very sad. He does this because he reasons that no one could ever find those two things to be both a violation and benign because they are so sad. However, the fact that humans can have the power of choice means that one cannot prove that there is anything which cannot be both benign and a violation to anyone. To conclude, Con's arguments are imaginative, but not relevant.Conclusion At this point I have proven my thesis to be true and I have shown how all of my opponent's points are fallacies. It should be pretty clear that I have sufficiently shown how anything can be funny. If there is anything that I need to further clarify, feel free to point those things out to me and I will be happy to oblige you :)That is all for now, thanks