Anything Can Be Funny

#1 - Rebuttal to the Benign Violation Theory was dropped. All arguments extended. #2 - My rebuttal to the fantasy scenario was dropped. All arguments extended.Definitions My opponent has resorted to merely arguing about definitions rather than the actual debate. This is problematic since he holds a 50% slit burden of proof. He begins by using extremely poor conduct. He refers to me as ridiculous, unreasonable and states that I have a childlike stubbornness. If this were more of a troll debate that could be accepted however, this is not really a troll debate and that language is not permissible. That behaviour should be enough of a reason to vote against pro on the conduct point. My opponent then contradicts his whole burden by stating that this debate is no longer fun. My opponent's burden requires him to prove that anything can be fun. This debate is no longer fun according to my opponent and I will quote him now:"His childlike stubbornness has taken this debate to the point where it is no longer fun for anyone." Whilst, this is an acceptable claim for Con (me) to say, it is not acceptable for my opponent since now I my opponent has provided me with an argument that proves that anything cannot be fun and this is true. My opponent may attempt to refute this by saying that it was only not fun for him however he clearly states that it is no longer fun for anyone. The key word being: anyone. This is contradictory to his burden and therefore voters ought to vote con. My opponent continues to make up things that I am saying. I never said that can means highly probable. I said equally probable (50% each way). This is significantly different to what my opponent is claiming I said. The reason for this being that the whole purpose of the definition change was so that this debate would be fair. Stating that I claimed that can is highly probable can be seen as an attempt to decieve voters into thinking that I made unfair and irrational claims to make my position easier to argue and unfair in favour of Pro. Reason 1 That wasn't a reason as to why I defined it that way. That was the reason as to why I defined it. It's is like ought and can. I once did a debate with Lexus regarding plants having the right to vote. The resolution was as follows: "Plants ought to have the right to vote" I made a similar mistake to you and argued that plants cannot vote because they are unable to. Because ought was undefined it was difficult to understand the resolutional issues within the debate. Ought does not imply can and therefore we had to cancel that debate prematurally due to the misunderstanding. This is why can must be defined. That doesn't really contribute as to why I defined it in the way that I did though. Reason 2 I never said that you used dictionary bias. I said that the fact that all of those dictionaries basically say the same thing is a reason to assume that the dictionaries are bias. Not you.Reason 3 My opponent practically concedes this point. He concedes that if it was defined in the way that he is debating then he is debating a truism. My opponent then states that if we use my definition then we are also debating a truism. This is not the case. Since you made yourself Pro on this topic and failed to provide definitions in R1, the definitions provided by you do not have to be accepted by me. If the instigator debates against a truism then it is usually because they have some sort of unique argument against the truism. The definition provided by me is fair however I am left disappointed because the whole purpose of the debate that you instigated is to trick debaters into debating against truisms. Luckily (with a bit of debating experience) I was able to show why a definition rejection is valid and why my definitions should be preferred over Pro's. Conclusion My opponent has dropped all of my rebuttals and only responded to the definition. This is problematic since they could have easily used this round to argue against my contentions as well as the definitions. This leaves all of my arguments extended with no rebuttals on them. I have refuted all of my opponent's claims, as well as demonstrated that my definition of can should be considered preferable. Furthermore, my opponent has conceded by stating that this debate is no longer fun for anyone. Meaning that they think that nobody is finding this debate fun and as a result their burden is contradicted and mine has been met.