Having bad table manners makes you a less liked person.

Overview – My opponent went back on a key claim that he made in his Round 2. Previously, I had attacked the study he provided (III), saying that all it even tried to show is that bad table manners can set a bad first impression – perhaps stopping someone from becoming more liked, but certainly not actively causing them to be less liked. In his Round 2 defense of this point, he said that the way a first impression could make you less liked was that, in fact, it would move people who have never met you to outright hatred of you. As my opponent pointed out, the study is the only "evidence" provided in this round; so its actual conclusions must be very carefully looked at. I'll get to that later (III). As for abusiveness and insults – again, I maintain that I have done nothing beyond what happens in any good debate. My opponent says that as part of a good debate, "you don't undermine your opponent". I agree – personal attacks are a big no-no – but I never undermined my opponent. Indeed, all I undermined was his case. And if I, as the CON, am not supposed to undermine the PRO's case, then what on earth am I supposed to do? If anything, my opponent is being abusive by calling me abusive and trying to force me to accept all his reasoning as valid, since apparently that's the only way I can be non-abusive. My opponent's case: I. Wording. A. My opponent says, "if you do have inappropriate behavior at a table, you have bad table manners." OK, but he's missing the point. The point is that that which is considered "inappropriate" or "bad" in the eyes of society and standards of table manners is not necessarily inherently bad. My opponent has been trying to frame the debate around the concept that bad table manners are, in fact, bad behavior – but, as I have shown, this reasoning is seriously flawed. C. I ask anyone reading this debate to head on over here (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and here (http://dictionary.reference.com...), and see for yourself that the vast majority of the definitions of 'person' and 'human', including the first one from each dictionary, have nothing to do with society or culture. Again, my opponent is trying to frame the debate in a way that's advantageous to him; but it simply does not hold water. II. Examples. I have repeatedly and consistently attacked my opponent's examples by saying that they fail to say anything about bad table manners in general. The fact of the matter is, you can have "bad table manners" without doing ANY of the things my opponent has listed. Do you eat soup with a regular spoon? ZING! Bad table manners. Do you ever put your elbows on a table? I'm sorry to inform you, but you have bad table manners. And that doesn't even count all the things that other cultures would call bad table manners. My opponent, by listing these examples as though they say something about bad table manners in general, is completely missing the point – that his burden is to show how bad table manners in general cause people to like you less. And again, the only place where my opponent has tried to uphold the connection between bad table manners and being less liked is in the study, and I'll get to that next. III. The study. The study's conclusion was that bad table manners can set a bad first impression. My point was that all that can do is keep new people from liking you, and that it has nothing to do with people who already like you because that wasn't studied. My opponent's point was that some people can be moved to outright hatred for you if their first impression of you is someone with bad table manners. If we accept both of these as true, with a reasonable limit (10% - which my opponent hasn't disputed) on how many people would seriously hate someone for bad table manners, this works for the CON side. This is the ONLY full, logical connection my opponent has made between bad table manners and being less liked – bad table manners, therefore bad first impression, therefore hated, therefore less liked. And the connection I have made between bad table manners and being MORE liked, my opponent has accepted as true for somewhere between 10% and 25% of people. Therefore, more people like you more for bad table manners, than hate you for them. Therefore, CON wins. IV. Murder and table cats. Again, murder goes way beyond bad table manners. But even if we accept that murder is nothing more than bad table manners, this is once again just one example, rather than an overview of bad table manners in general. The same is true of table cats. Later in this point, my opponent tries to backtrack on his claim that people become less liked for bad table manners through becoming hated for them; but if you allow my opponent to give up that line of reasoning, then he has lost his only mechanism for people becoming less liked for bad table manners. V. OA and Overview. I have already covered this in my above points (I-IV). Onto my case! 1. Cultural Relativism. a. My opponent says, "My opponent agrees that there are such things as bad table manners, and because he does, I essentially win." Whoa there. In order to even debate this topic, one has to agree that bad table manners exist. So what my opponent is saying here is that in order to debate this topic, I must concede to him. Now, I've only been into formal debate for a couple years or so, but I'm pretty sure that's a pretty ridiculous thing to say – along the lines of what I jokingly proposed earlier, that I win because the sky is blue. b. I keep throwing out the word hate, because it's the only full connection my opponent has made between bad table manners and being less liked (see III). And the fact of the matter here is, again, even if you stick to good table manners according to one culture, you're violating every other culture's standards. And you're NOT LESS LIKED as a result. This is a clear example of an entire massive set of "bad table manners" behaviors that do not result in being less liked. The resolution doesn't stipulate that you're in the area where your behavior is considered "bad table manners", so we can't assume that. 2. Just 'cause...just 'cause, because we're rebels, yeah!! Again, hatred is the only way my opponent has made the connection between bad table manners and being less liked. Therefore, we must match it up against the connection I made between bad table manners and being MORE liked. When we do so, it is clear to see that more people like you more for bad table manners, than hate you for it. Thus, CON wins. I have consistently shown why PRO's points are flawed, while providing my own points that have stood up to my opponent's attacks. The only mechanism my opponent provided for bad table manners to translate into being less liked was through outright hatred, and I have shown (without dispute from my opponent) that this consideration is outweighed by the mechanism I provided for bad table manners to translate into being MORE liked. Thus, above all, I ask the judges and voters to see that in fact, according to what has been said in this debate, bad table manners make someone more liked overall. Therefore, if you vote or judge based upon the debate itself, you clearly must vote CON. I thank the judges, the voters, the site owner, the tournament coordinators, and my opponent for making this round possible. It's been very fun.