Brad Stine as a Comedian

I do not concede that Brad Stine is sexist, racist, or any of the '-ist' that you attach to him. I specifically argued that comedians may say racist, sexist, and brutish remarks. I argued that this doesn't really mean that they are brutish themselves. You do not prove that I am wrong. I have basically been saying that what Stine says in his comedy routine does not absolutely define his beliefs and who he is, and you have no absolute proof that it does. My case is based on a criteria for what it means to be a good comedian. This would be the criteria of 'funny' that we both more or less agree to. My case is based on this criteria, and this criteria for the affirmative case is certainly valid. You haven't provided a valid critique to my criteria, and even went so far as to agree to it. Calling it a strawman is not consistent with your dialogue up to this point. Even if you didn't agree to the 'funny' criteria, I would have argued that the 'funny' criteria is the best criteria. My case is based on the criteria. If Stine is funny, then he is a good comedian. I showed that Stine is funny by noting his continued occupational success as a comedian. It's all very well that you're comparing Stine to Louis C.K., Dave Chappelle and George Carlin, but what are you using to measure the elements of flow, speech, humor, etc.? You're using your own personal opinion. And who are you to claim that you are the best and most valid source to gauge Brad Stine's performance? My argument on the other hand uses the audience to his routine to prove that he is funny. That Brad Stine is a successful comedian with enough of an audience to make him a successful comedian is a hard empirical measure. Thousands of people pay to have Stine entertain them. They wouldn't do so if they didn't believe that he was worth their money. No comedian is perfect. Haters are always going to hate. Even the most popular, spectacular videos have a few dislikes. Obviously the non-haters are more significant than the haters because Stine is still a successful comedian. The mass of audience that exists and supports Stine have thousands of times more collective credibility than you do. Your opinion is an opinion of one. Even if you can cite other people's displeasure at Stine's routines, your citation only number a few. I'm even going to go so far to say that success is what makes a good comedian. Stine is definitely successful. His success proves that enough people think him funny to allow him to continue succeeding. And therefore Stine is a good comedian. All of what I've said so far is my case. You do not disprove my case, and complaining about little things and attaching fancy names like 'strawman' to what I say does not fundamentally negate that my case solidly proves that Stine is a good comedian. Proving Stine to be a good comedian is my Burden of Proof, as some of you call it, and I satisfy it. Now not only do I satisfy my Burden of Proof, my case shows that your case, which is based entirely on your single opinion, doesn't hold up. My criteria of funny negates your criteria of social equality and attitude. Whatever you perceive of Stine is only your opinion anyway. It's fine that you don't like Stine as a comedian, but you aren't an objective source to proving that Stine is a bad comedian. Stine's occupational success is on the other hand an objective measure. Stine's having enough of an audience to allow him to succeed is an objective measure. My evidence is many many times better than your evidence. By this, your comparison to other comedians - your opinion - don't work. Since you agree that the criteria of funny is all that matters, you've pretty much agreed that none of your cases in your first round matter to this debate. If my case is true, then your case fails. And my case has been proven so far to be accurate since you don't give any real rebuttal to my points. FINAL STATEMENTS Your overwhelming support is ultimately just your opinion. It is nothing compared to the empirical evidence that I provide. Even if I don't know Stine, I don't have to. I usually don't resort to my opinions for a debate, and I'm not going to start now. Thanks to Con, and Nah.