The Office (US) is funnier than _______

Okey dokey. Well my opponent has brought up some new arguments in the final round, stuff that should have been brought up ealier to give me a fair chance. This should be a conduct point in my favor. Even if you think I lost, I still earned that conduct point.It is common practice to disregard new arguments in the final round. I should win for the reasons stated in the last round, because only new arguments came about. My opponent even realizes new arguments in the final round are unacceptable because he states the following: "he can't introduce new polls late in the round because I can no longer debate them"Don't let him get away with new arguments because he made it clear he would not let me get away with them.Here are the new arguments that should be ignored.1. The incongruity theory2. The percentage that Seinfeld won with is within the margin of error (only one by 1%)3. THE OFFICE wasn't in the pollThese 3 arguments are new and should be completely ignored. Let's rehash my argument to see if Pro ever comes close to disproving it.P1-Humor is subjective.A plainly obvious truism, people laugh at different things. P2- More people find Seinfeld funnyA 60 minute poll determined more people find Seinfeld funny. C1- Seinfeld is more funny.The conclusion naturally comes from the premises I have provided.My opponent never challenges that the conclusion follows from the premises. Most of his arguments should also not be counted, though I may touch on them. He is relying completely on toppling over my premises. Something he fails to do. My opponent also drops my argument that proving this argument true means I have affirmed the resolution in my favor. Since he accepts that, me winning this argument, should give me the win. The only question is, do I do it. I'll spoil this for you. I do. Let's examine thesepremises and his responses in a clear way. P1-Humor is subjective.Pro says: "The incongruity theory states that humor is perceived at the moment of realization of incongruity between a concept involved in a certain situation and the real objects thought to be in some relation to the concept." We have already discussed how this is a new argument and should be ignored, but what does his statement mean? Well incongruity simply means expecting something different than you see. This is not an argument for humor being objective. Both Seinfeld and The Office has incongruity. So how do we decide which incongruity is superior? Pro does not tell us how. The theory is just nonsense anyway. We see incongruity in the Saw films and nobody laughs, we see it in M. Night Shamalon films, and yet they are not funny. Pro also just simply states the theory and gives us no reason to believe it. he linked to an article with 20 disagreeing humor theories and just picked one out of a hat.P2- More people find Seinfeld funnyPro says: "The percentage that Seinfeld won with is within the margin of error (only one by 1%) and because THE OFFICE wasn't in the poll."My opponent is wrong on a few points here. Let's take his word that the margin of error in the poll is just 1%. Seinfeld still got 22% of the vote. The Honeymooners got 20% of the vote. The difference is greater than 1%. Even if it wasn't The office ranks so low it was not even mentioned. http://www.cbsnews.com...; The question asked was "what is the greatest sitcom of all time"?. It was an open ended question. People could pick any comedy they wanted, they just didn't think the office was funny, so they left it out. C1- Seinfeld is more funny.My arguments were not that good, which is why I dropped most of them, but the only argument needed to win (A point pro did not contest) was proven. Even without the voters disregarding the new arguments (And they should). P1 is proven, it is the default belief system and I gave reasons to believe it besides that. My opponent, just offerred a theory on humor from the 1700s, without saying why we should accept it. We have as much reason to accept it as the numerous others on the article he cied, which is none. Hell even if his theory is accepted, both shows have a lot of instances of incongruity, and the only way to tell the difference in quality would be subjective, and he atleast admits that humor is somewhat subjective when he said:"Humor is subjective to a certain point, as different people find different things funny. For example if I laugh at something that someone else doesn't than I may have a different taste." He even goes on to mention the movie Saw is not funny, though it became so popular because of the incongruities. Nobody knew what to expect next. He shows his theory to be garbage in the same paragraph he offers it.He says that The Office is not offered on he poll, but it was an open poll, nor was Seinfeld. He says that 1% is the margin of error on the poll, but Seinfeld is ahead by more than 1%. Anyway, read my last 2 rounds. I should not have won, but I obviously did.