Having bad table manners makes you a less liked person.

I will address the term concerns in my 1st contention as they are one in the same. Moving on to my case then: I: Wording of the Resolution: which as stated before are provided by the Funk Dictionary. A: I defined table manners as conventional behavior expected of people while dining. Bad is defined as not proper, out of order, or not suitable. Since "bad table manners" is not a term found in Funk or any dictionary that I am familiar with, then we'll have to except a fusion of the two definitions. I don't believe it is outrageous for me to say bad table manners mean unsuitable behavior of people while dining. B: He Agrees. C: My definition of person, a human being expected to have good behavioral patterns as conditioned by culture, still holds up. I do agree that different cultures have different standards, but the resolution doesn't demand that there is one set of table manners. My examples show perspective in America, but I will discuss the cultural differences shortly. My opponent never reveals his source for his terms, he references dictionary.com in one point, but I would appreciate if he could provide his source to them. Until I uphold the definitions, because I proove why they uphold in my arguments, and because I'm the only one with sources to them. II: Examples Off of his points he made against my contention: The examples are meant to show how people are less liked if they have bad table manners, you never deny they do that. And as stated in my second contention analysis, that it is impossible to name every single bad table manner, but I listed many, and I show why generally people will be less liked if they use bad table manners. Now if my opponent wants to be picky and demand that I culturally show every single bad table manner from every culture, then all my characters would be wasted towards a fraction of listing them. I use U.S. customs because we are both Americans and can both relate to them and we can both know why they are innopropriate. If you want me to discuss every single international custom, then that is abusive on the Con's part. I think both of us can agree that most cultures have general guidelines as to what good and bad table manners are. And if you bring up the argument that some cultures dont have table manners, that doesnt destroy the Pro's arguments. We know that table manners exist in many regions of the world, and wherever they are, people are expected to follow them. And so if a person has bad table manners in a region with cultural or traditional table manners, I do believe they will be less liked in that region, because they did something that was out of order, and not proper in that region's table manner guidelines. And if a person steps outside of their region's table manners and has bad table manners somewhere else, they will not be liked as much there, because that region expects a certain level of appropriate behavior while dining. III: Studies The study is from a Baylor Briefs Debate Research Packet, which I found in the debate room at my high school, the source is solid, and I can assure you that it does have relevancy to this debate round. Liked, as you agreed with is to regard with favor; respect of character. Therefore Hated, the opposite is defined as, the state of being disliked (Funk). The reason I bring up this is because when you meet a person for the first time you have a certain in the middle...don't really know feeling of if you'll like them or not. If you start their impressions by having bad table manners, they will know that they will not like you therfore decreasing their levels of like (from not sure, to, hate). That is why the study still upholds and it still shows why people will like people less if they have bad table manners. IV: Resolutional Analysis Because my definiton of what bad and what table manners are, my RA still holds. The combo def. is inappropriate behavior expected of people while dining. I'm going by the guidelines of what the definition are. But my RA doesnt only include murder, I could decide to put a cat on the table and it would be seen as rude and not acceptable behavior. If my opponent tries to bring up that I cant show what all table manners around the world are again here, I would urge you to see my side and what impossible burden he puts on me if he says that I cant proove that puting a cat on a table might be viewed differently in various cultures. V: Observational Analysis and Overview If it wasn't already clear, my opponent has been extremely rude throughout his writings, which includes his argument against my fifth contention. The point of my observational analysis is to look at the round, see how the arguments connect and why I proove the resolution true. And because I want to take the high road I will tell you why the Pro should win the round, instead of trying to cheaply undermine my opponent's intelligence and throw up smoke screens to actual debate, like my opponent has chosen to do. My defintions still uphold as I've explained, but as for the arguments, my examples show how Americans like each other less if others committ these bad table mnners. Because it is impossible to show every single country, I provide solid analysis of the one we both live in that prooves that the resolution is true. He calls my Study unapplicable, he calls my RA unapplicable, but you see he never disprooves these points truly wrong, just that they are unapplicable, and I think I've shown why they are applicable, they can be in this debate, so he is actually the one truly avoiding the debate at hand about bad table manners. Finally he insults my intelligence in the OA, and throughout the round, and I was looking forward to a clean, fun debate, but I guess that doesn't always happen. Against his case now I: Cultural Relativism A: I've explained that this is abusive before, but furthermore that even if I was able to list all of the cultures, that it would still be seen that people in those regions will not like each one another if somebody has bad table manners, because it's unsuitable behavior expected of people while dining. B: As I explained before, if a person from region A goes into region B, and region B has more sophisticated manners, then they will be less liked in region B. It may not be fair, but the resolution doesnt call for fairness, it calls for truth, and the truth is that if you have table manners that are considered bad table manners in that other region, then you will be less liked. II: Acting against standards, liked by some My opponent earlier was asking me to debate this topic on a general level, and consider that the "rebellions against good table manners" would be seen as a very small percentage compared to the ones that accept table manners as what they are. Because a rebellion against something wouldnt be a rebellion if there were more against something than for, rather the ones against good table manners would be in the minority...but considering that we can at least assume that 75% of people are in favor of good table manners, and 25% are for bad (numbers are probably more like 90-10), but just for example, that means 75% of people wouldn't like you, which implies a majority of people would like you less, or plain just dislike if you comitt bad table manners. So that prooves the resolution correct, that having bad table manners makes you a less liked person, because a majority of people wouldnt like you. I wrapped up my case in my OA rebuttal argument, please read that for a conclusion of my points, and see why I proove the resolution true and all he prooves essentially...is that he likes to insult me and call my arguments unapplicable, but you will see that my points are applicable. I hope my opponent debates the actual resolution more in the next speech, stops trying to ignore the actual debate at hand, and takes a higher road then insulting his opponent's intelligence. Thank You.