People take debate.org way to seriously

Pro says, "I thought it would be understood, that if you are from America "too seriously" means to be not a joke or not to be taken seriously, and if you don't know what seriously means try looking in this awesome thing called a dictionary." So according to Pro, "too seriously" means 1. not a joke 2. not to be taken seriously His second definition is self-contradictory, so we'll look at "not a joke." That's a definition of "seriously." "Too seriously" implies something done to excess. So the best we suppose is that doing anything that is not a joke is "too serious." That's obvious nonsense. Pro invites me to look in a dictionary to find the meaning of "too seriously." In the first place it's Pro's job to define what he is talking about. In the absence of that, I proposed a definition to which Pro had no objection. The phrase "too seriously" is not in any dictionary of which I'm aware. The meaning I ascribed was in accord with common understand. Pro's definition, not introduced until the last round, of "not a joke" is weird and nonsensical. There is no error of excess in believing that debate is not a joke. Pro takes great pride in telling us how he managed to have fun by sabotaging a web game and ruining everyone else's fun. That is, of course, immature and unethical, but it does tell us what his idea of fun is. His idea of fun is sabotaging everyone else's game. That concept only works if most people do not agree with it. It requires that most people have fun playing by the rules, so that Pro can have fun by ruining that. Thus Pro implicitly concedes that vanishing few people on the site agree with the resolution. Pro attempts in the last round to define "people" as meaning "at least a few people." That is not a logical meaning to ascribe to the resolution. If one makes the generality "Basketball players are tall." One is not claiming merely that at least two basketball players are tall, one is claiming that enough are tall to make it reasonable generality. If Pro wanted a weird definition, he had to do that in his opening argument, so that everyone considering the challenge would know he had loaded the resolution with an unreasonable definition. Moreover, we have learned that Pro's concept of "fun" requires spoiling the game for most players. He revealed that in the pride he took in ruining a web game. From that we also learn that Pro believes that most people on debate.org take the site too seriously. If it were just a small number, he wouldn't be complaining that his antics were generally the target of objections. I have not made any objection to having fun topics on debate.org. People can debate fun topics within the general debate format. Nonetheless, it remains a debate site with rounds, character limits, judging, and so forth. Treating a debate site as a debate site, within the meaning of "debate," is not taking debate.org too seriously. Pro has made no coherent case and concedes that he did not even read, let alone rebut, counter arguments. In last round he tried to adopt unreasonable definitions. His conduct was poor, as he felt it necessary to be in order to gain attention. He paid no attention to spell or grammar, making a spelling error in the resolution just for starters, and was largely incoherent. The resolution is negated.