Normality

In order for Con to win this debate, they must show that 'Normality' is a complete lie. That means there can be absolutely no doubt in the legitimacy of normality. If Pro is able to show any area where normality exists, or is reasonable conceptually he shall win the debate. I intend to meet this burden by refuting the warrants that Con offers in support for their claims, establishing normality conceptually, and will reserve the right to argue that normality exists if needed. 1) Understanding Normality Dictionary.com defines Normality as[1] "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural." So, anything that meets any of these measures is normal. It is important to remember that normal is not a value judgement, but rather an indication of a state of being. For example, if I go to McDonalds and order a McDouble, I would expect to receive a sandwich with a two buns, two 10:1 patties, one slice of cheese, ketchup, mustard, pickles and dehydrated onions. That would be normal in the given context as it is what is usual and regular when ordering a McDouble. Whether or not that sandwich is good or bad is a value judgement and not a matter of normality. Normality is an assessment of whether or not an outcome is reasonable given the the context. 2) Relativity and Context Con notes that "What's normal to me is chaos to you, and the same thing in reverse." and this is true. For me it's normal to stay up late and sleep in; for Con, it may be normal to wake up before dawn and be in bed before sundown. This doesn't establish Con's Burden of proof however, it just establishes that we're different people - that fact that we can have distinct and separate standards of what is normal or abnormal doesn't undermine the concept of normality. This is why relativity is such a useful concept[2], basically we don't have to have universal standards in order for something to be considered normal. These standards can be reliant on our own lives and lived experiences. However as Con's argument suggests, our experiences should establish schemata to determine whether an outcome is normal or not. Context also matters within the same person. If I don't have work on a particular day, or if I am working from home, it is completely normal for me to not put on a pair of pants until I have to leave the house. However, if I am working from my office, then not wearing pants would probably get me fired. Similarly, if I am camping, cooking hot dogs over an open fire built from sticks and grass would be perfectly fine; to do so in my home however would be dangerous and irresponsible. Standards of normality can be flexible, and can change based on the person or circumstance. What is important is the establishment of schemata which allow us to determine whether an outcome is normal or abnormal. 3) Normality exist I don't actually have the burden to prove this, but I want to establish this as viable Pro ground to build upon if necessary. All I have to do in order to win, is disprove Con's claim that "Normality is a complete lie". I believe that refuting Con's warrants for this claim and establishing normality conceptually meets my burden, so I will not expand upon this argument in depth here. I should note that this debate has a 10,000 character allotment, but I will leave this round here since Con's opening statements were so sparse. Thanks for the debate, vote Pro! [1] http://www.dictionary.com... [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com...