The Instigator
Dr.1up
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
famousdebater
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Anything Can Be Funny

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
famousdebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 975 times Debate No: 82003
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (3)

 

Dr.1up

Pro

Hello, Dr.1up here! My mission with this debate is to show people how anything (and I do mean anything) can be funny. Think you can prove me wrong? Let's have a bit of fun and find out shall we? :)
famousdebater

Con

I accept your challenge. I will allow you to make the first move but before you do so I must tell you what you must prove to be funny.

You must show that the slow and painful death of every body in the world's parents can be funny.
Debate Round No. 1
Dr.1up

Pro

Thanks to Con for choosing to appose me in this debate. I hope this will be a fun way of discussing the question, "what makes something funny?"

Clarifications & Definitions

The claim goes as follows: Anything Can Be Funny

The respective burdens in this debate are split, with each of us needing to prove something.

As Con, my opponent must show that there are things which are not funny

As Pro, I must show how anything could be funny

************

As evidenced, the key term of this debate is "funny".

The Oxford dictionary defines "funny" as: making you laugh; amusing

With the burdens and key term now clarified, I will move into my arguments and rebuttals.

****************

Arguments:

1. You Can Laugh At Anything

The term "funny" is a relative term. The very definition of the word hinges on the statement, "What makes someone laugh?"

So... What makes someone laugh? Can anything make someone laugh?

If the answer to the former question is "yes", then I MUST be correct.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the Humor Research Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder (HuRL for short). This program is dedicated to the scientific study of humor, its antecedents, and its consequences. HuRL is directed by Dr. Peter McGraw, Associate Professor of Marketing and Psychology at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

So how do the people at the Humor Research Lab answer the question "what makes things funny?"

Well, they use something called the Benign Violation Theory as their theoretical foundation.

Don't worry, its not as confusing as it sounds. The theory builds on work by a linguist, Tom Veatch, and integrates existing humor theories to propose that humor occurs when and only when three conditions are satisfied; that is, something is only "funny" if it can meet these three requirements:

(1) a situation is a violation (the situation threatens one"s beliefs about how the world should be)

(2) the situation is benign (something makes the situation okay)

(3) both perceptions occur simultaneously.

Here's a good example:
Play fighting and tickling, which produce laughter in humans (and other primates), are benign violations because they are physically threatening, but harmless attacks.

Can anything meet these three requirements and be considered funny? Even the slow and painful death of every body in the world's parents? Well, yes. Anything can meet these requirements, because the proven requirements for what makes something funny are all based on one"s own beliefs. Because anyone can believe ANYTHING they want, anything can be funny. It all depends on what you choose to think is a violation and what you choose to consider to be okay.

************

Rebuttals:

Pro (Me): Hey, why couldn't little Suzy find her parents? ಠ_ಠ

Con: I don't know Dr.1up, why couldn't little Suzy find her parents? (^_^)

Me: Because every body in the world's parents died a slow and painful death, that's why!
>:D HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

Con: ( ಥـْـِـِـِـْಥ)...

Me: ... HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hey, knock knock...

Con: Who.. Who's there? ( ಥـْـِـِـِـْಥ)

Me: Not little Suzy's parents!!! :3

Con: DANG IT!!! >:{

The End.

I rest my case.
Whether you found the situation I just provided to amusing or not; the point is, you "can" find it to be funny. Just like you "can" find "anything" to be funny.

**************

In closing,

I've clarified the definitions of key terms and burdens. I've provided an argument which proves that anything can be funny, and have additionally rebutted the only argument raised by Con.

I now return the floor to Con.

Thank you :)
famousdebater

Con

NOTE

I will begin this argument by showing how my opponent's argument is flawed. Firstly, I did not accept to a definition in R1 so therefore my arguments opponent strongly relies on me accepting their definitions.

R1 - Definitions

I do not accept to my opponent's definition of funny because it gives him an unfair advantage in the debate. I propose that funny is defined as the following:

Funny: Something that makes you laugh because you find something amusing.

I will now define can so that it is defined.

Can: Highly Possibly is (50%+)

With these definitions in place my opponent's arguments are flawed since they must actively demonstrate (as part of their burden of proof) that my scenario genuinly made him (and/or others).

R2 - Fantasy Scenario

The only part of my opponent's argument that isn't really refuted by the new definitions propsed is the fantasy scenario of jokes (that apparently I participated in).

Firstly, as part of my opponent's burden they must prove why this is funny. They may have created a (bad) joke that they (apparently) laughed at. However their burden requires them to prove that they laughed and that they found it funny. Even if they do manage to prove that they laughed they must also prove that they laughed and (geniunly) found it funny.

R3 - Scientific Studies

I don't really need to cover this however just for clarification I will. The studies provide 3 requirments. My opponent states that my scenario can be believed by anybody but this is a violation of two things.

a) The new definition of can
b) The fact that they haven't actively proven that anybody can believe anything also proves their argument invalid (for now).

Now onto arguments ...

C1 - Death is saddening

Our loved ones play important roles in our daily lives, and their deaths leave gaping holes. Often, we want more time with them — more joy, more laughter, more healing — and death makes those hopes impossible to fulfill. We remember our good times with the deceased, knowing that they are now over; memories can be crushing (1).

C2 - Watching your parents suffer is torture

Torture is unethical.

[Torture] dehumanizes people by treating them as pawns to be manipulated through their pain.

Torture treats the victim as a means to an end and not an end in themselves. It treats the victim as a 'thing', not as a person with all the value that we associate with persons. Torturers often explicitly dehumanise their victims to make it easier to torture them. It uses the physical body of the victim not as a component part of a person of value, but as a tool to achieve the aims of the torturer. (2)

Sources

(1) http://www.seattletimes.com...
(2) http://www.bbc.co.uk...;

Debate Round No. 2
Dr.1up

Pro

IMPORTANT NOTE

Before I explain in great detail why none of my opponent's arguments hold any merit, I’d like to point out the fact that my opponent just made up his own definition for the word “funny.” He claimed that he had reason to do so because he thinks that my definition (the official definition of the word ‘funny’ which appears in the Oxford dictionary) gives me an unfair advantage in this debate.
He also decided that he needed to define the word, “Can” and claimed that it meant, and I quote, “Highly Possibly is (50%+).”
I guess I made the mistake of assuming that my opponent knew the definition of the word “Can.” :P

For anyone who is confused about this simple word, the word “Can” is used to express the possibility of something, not the probability of something.
This truth can be seen as it is unanimously agreed upon by the three different reputable sources shown below:

(1) The Oxford dictionary:
“Can: used to say that it is possible for somebody/something to do something, or for something to happen”

(2) Dictionary.reference.com:
“Can: to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to”

(3) Webster’s Dictionary:
“Can: to be able to do, make, or accomplish”

Needless to say, the word "can" absolutely does not mean "Highly Possibly is (50%+).” in any way and my opponent's desire to re-define this word just so he can change my argument is just silly. He should have known better than to think that this was a reasonable claim.

However, because I am a nice person and I don't want to my opponent to keep whining about my "unfair advantage." of using the dictionary, I will allow my opponent's make-believe definition for the word "funny" to be used in place of the actual definition during this debate as his definition is essentially the same as the one I used, only slightly less... elegant ;)

Once again, here is Con's definition (the one that will be used in this debate):

Funny: Something that makes you laugh because you find something amusing.

Alright, since that mess has now been sufficiently dealt with for the time being, I will move on to my rebuttals and such.


Explanation Of The "Fantasy Scenario"

Although it may have seemed awkward to some people, the scenario that I wrote was only there because I thought it would be a fun way to show how one might think the "slow and painful death of every body in the world's parents" to be funny.

I already explained why anything (including the slow and painful death of everyone's parents) can be funny in the "arguments" section of my previous writing by using the Benign Violation Theory so Con's demand that I must now prove why the situation is funny has already been met.
...You're welcome Con :)

Which brings me to my next rebuttal...

Why Con Is Wrong In Thinking That He Can Disprove The Benign Violation Theory

Just to recap, here is what I said about the theory and how it proves that anything can be funny:

"... The theory builds on work by a linguist, Tom Veatch, and integrates existing humor theories to propose that humor occurs when and only when three conditions are satisfied; that is, something is only "funny" if it can meet these three requirements:

(1) a situation is a violation (the situation threatens one"s beliefs about how the world should be)

(2) the situation is benign (something makes the situation okay)

(3) both perceptions occur simultaneously.

Here's a good example:
Play fighting and tickling, which produce laughter in humans (and other primates), are benign violations because they are physically threatening, but harmless attacks.

Can anything meet these three requirements and be considered funny? Even the slow and painful death of every body in the world's parents? Well, yes. Anything can meet these requirements, because the proven requirements for what makes something funny are all based on one"s own beliefs. Because anyone can believe ANYTHING they want, anything can be funny. It all depends on what you choose to think is a violation and what you choose to consider to be okay."

Con gives two reasons for why he believes that my argument is invalid. I will now address both and why neither one is valid:

Con's first reason
"a) The new definition of can"

This argument is invalid because one cannot change the definition of the word "can" as I have already pointed out.

Con's second reason
b) The fact that they haven't actively proven that anybody can believe anything also proves their argument invalid (for now)."

Anyone can believe anything they want because the only requirement in order to believe something is the power of choice. If you can think logically than you have the ability to choose what you believe. No matter how unlikely it is that someone may believe in something, they sill "can." Also, just to clarify, even if everyone doesn't have the power of choice (there may be people with mental illnesses that can't function that way) as long as just one person can choose to laugh at something because they find it amusing, than the statement, "anything can be funny" must be true.

Sorry About Your Evidence

Finally, I'd like to point out the fact that neither of my opponent's arguments are valid. In Con's arguments he points out two things that he believes are very sad. He does this because he reasons that no one could ever find those two things to be both a violation and benign because they are so sad. However, the fact that humans can have the power of choice means that one cannot prove that there is anything which cannot be both benign and a violation to anyone. To conclude, Con's arguments are imaginative, but not relevant.

Conclusion

At this point I have proven my thesis to be true and I have shown how all of my opponent's points are fallacies. It should be pretty clear that I have sufficiently shown how anything can be funny. If there is anything that I need to further clarify, feel free to point those things out to me and I will be happy to oblige you :)

That is all for now, thanks
famousdebater

Con

Definitions

It isn't about whether or not the dictionary definition of funny was different to what I stated. Definitions need to be custom for specific debates and bias definitions are the exact circumstances where definition revision is necessary. My opponent obviously doesn't understand the purpose of definitions in a debate. He apparently thinks that I defined 'can' because I didn't know what it meant. Can is an extremely important element of the resolution and the definition of it can alter the resolution and the winner entirely. Can needs to be defined because can is often mistaken for being the same as the word 'is'(for example). Firstly, it doesn't matter how many dictionaries agree with you and the fact that all of those dictionaries basically state the same thing implies dictionary bias. 3 dictionaries with the same definition. Suspicious? My opponent claims that my definition is false. This is not the case for this debate (as my opponent is clearly failing to undestand). For this debate, a 50%+ is necessary because if you use your definition then it includes a 1% chance. That is clearly a definition in your favour of the resolution, making it easier for you to argue. A 50% chance indicates equality on both sides of the debate and that is why my definition should be viewed as superior to my opponent's and my definitions should be viewed as a truism for this debate.

I will now rearrange my opponent's arguments around because he makes the claim that his fantasy scenario is valid because of is violation theory. His violation counter rebuttal is provided below so I will merely switch these around in order to make it easier for my opponent and voters.


Benign Violation Theory

Con's (my) reasoning:

a) A new definition of can

The new definition still stands, therefore this is invalid.

b) The fact that they haven't actively proven that anybody can believe anything also proves their argument invalid (for now).

Let's put this into a more simple argument:

Claim: The benign Violation theory is false

P1: A new definition of can has been proposed
P2: My opponent has not proven that anybody can believe anyting
P3: Can has been redifined to 50%+

C1: My opponent's rebuttal is refuted
C2: The Benign Violation Theory is disproven

P1 neccessitates P2. They are linked. Since there is a new definition of can, this means that my opponent must prove that anybody can believe anything (50%+). What my opponent has done is stated that no matter how unlikely it is, people can still believe anything. I have 2 problems with this argument:

a) It isn't sourced.
b) It includes the word can, which means 50%+

Fantasy Scenario

This is essentially a failed argument by my opponent. P1 neccessitates P2 in this new argument. Observe ...

P1: The fantasy scenario is correct because the Benign Violation Theory is correct
P2: The Benign Violation Theory is correct
C1: I win the debate.

This is essentially my opponent's argument. I have proven the violation theory incorrect. Therefore, the first premise fails. Since P1 necessitates P2 the whole argument fails. The conclusion isn't met and this argument fails.

Evidence

My opponent concedes that they are sad and the definition of funny is almost the opposite of sad. The definition was agreed upon by my opponent in the previous round. This contradicts his whole point and turns the argument against him.

I wont respond to my opponent's conclusion becauseit doesn't provide anything new to the debate. Again, the conlusion is dependant on the argument that he has provided which have been refuted by me.

Conclusion

This is my conclusion (not a rebuttal to his).

My opponent has dropped both of my contentions deeming them irrelevant because they are refuted by his arguments. My opponent is shooting himself in the foot by stating this. In any debate, people think that their contentions refute their opponent's argument. The point is that you don't know if your arguments will be refuted so you respond to each contention individually anyway. My burden is currently being met because there has been no evident analysis of my arguments by my opponent since they have not been responded to. My opponent is now arguing for a neutral debate. The best that he can hope for is a tie vote. His burden cannot be met without mine being met. If we both meet our burdens the it is a neutral result.
Debate Round No. 3
Dr.1up

Pro

The word "Can" has a very clear definition.

My opponent is being ridiculous and unreasonable. His childlike stubbornness has taken this debate to the point where it is no longer fun for anyone.
  • > My argument for why anything can be funny heavily depends on the word "can" meaning that something is possible.
  • > My opponent's argument against the idea that anything can be funny heavily depends on the word "can" meaning that something is highly probable.


My opponent has given three reasons for why he is justified in saying that the word "can" should mean "Highly Possibly is (50%+)."

I will now address all three reasons...



Reason one:


"Can needs to be defined because can is often mistaken for being the same as the word 'is"



Does the statement "Anything Is Funny" convey the same meaning as the statement "Anything Can Be Funny"?

Of course it doesn't!
Those two statements mean completely different things right?
  • > "Is" has a very clear definition
  • > "Can" has a very clear definition

The word "Can" is not often mistaken for being the same as the word "is"


Reason two:

"it doesn't matter how many dictionaries agree with you and the fact that all of those dictionaries basically state the same thing implies dictionary bias. 3 dictionaries with the same definition. Suspicious?"



The fact that I showed quotes from three different reputable dictionaries proves that I didn't use "dictionary bias."




Reason three:

"For this debate, a 50%+ is necessary because if you use your definition then it includes a 1% chance. That is clearly a definition in your favour of the resolution, making it easier for you to argue. A 50% chance indicates equality on both sides of the debate and that is why my definition should be viewed as superior to my opponent's and my definitions should be viewed as a truism for this debate."


Changing the definition of the word "can" to mean "Highly Possibly is (50%+)" does not indicate equality on both sides of this debate:

  • > If the word "can" is used to say that it is "possible for somebody/something to do something, or for something to happen" then the statement, "Anything Can Be Funny" must be a true statement and I have 100% won this debate.
  • > If the word "can" is used to say that it is "highly probable for somebody/something to do something, or for something to happen" then the statement "Anything Can Be Funny" isn't a true statement and Con has 100% won this debate.


Conclusion

Because neither of us are willing to change our definitions of the word "can", it will be up to the voters to decide what the acceptable definition of the word "can" is:


  • > If you think that the word "can" means that something is possible, you agree with Pro.
  • > If you think that the word "can" means that something is highly probable, you agree with Con.


Thank you,
famousdebater

Con

#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.
Debate Round No. 4
Dr.1up

Pro

I'd like to thank FamousDebater for choosing to debate me on this topic.

I made the debate with several goals in mind.
I intended on discussing what makes things funny and why anything has the potential to be funny.
I decided to preform this discussion in a debate fashion to see if anyone could find any holes in my theory.

More importantly however, I wanted to see if anyone would say anything interesting.

This debate could have been about allot of things (the potential of the human mind, Murphy's law ect).
There was even an interesting conversation about space-time in the comments section, prompted by this topic!

You see, those are the moments that should inspire people to have debates like this :D

Not the pointless pursuit of "Winning."

That is why I was disappointed to find that my opponent began his argument with, "I do not accept to my opponent's definition of funny because it gives him an unfair advantage in the debate."

Consequently, we have spent this entire debate, debating about what we are actually debating about.

Most of my points have been considered invalid by my opponent and vice versa because we are trying to prove two different, non-conflicting statements.

Pro: "Anything has the potential to be funny"

Con: "It is not highly possible (50%) that anything could make someone laugh because they find it amusing."

Because of this, our debate has proven to be pointless with very little productive discussion taking place.
That is why, regardless of who "wins", we have both lost this debate in my eyes.

That is all I have to say,
Thank you
famousdebater

Con

Thank you for (eventually) telling me your goals. These goals really should have been posted in R1 alongside definitions so amongst acceptance it would be necessary for them to argue according to your terms. My opponent technically concedes (twice) and I will highlight this in my conclusion

My opponent's concessions:

" we have both lost this debate in my eyes.

I agree that he has lost. I disagree that I have lost. Since we both agree that he has lost, this is a concession.

Another more imporant concession is when my opponent states this: "this debate to the point where it is no longer fun for anyone."

This is a concession. Even if you do buy all of his terms and arguments he just said that it is no longer fun for anyone. His burden requires him to prove that anything can be funny and if he states that nobody thinks that this is funny then his burden is at fault. I agree that this debate is no longer fun for anybody and therefore my burden is met.

It is not enought to state that you are subjectively disappointed with me for not agreeing to the definitions that were NOT presented in R1. This is allowed in debate. Definitions are allowed to be debated on. A rebuttal is insufficient when it is solely based off one debaters subjectivity which conflicts with the others. Subjectivity is personal and therefore my opponent must make arguments that everyone will agree upon (using objective facts).

My opponent has dropped all my contentions so I extend them out again and I strongly urge voters to vote Con!

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stefanwaal 1 year ago
Stefanwaal
RFD:

This debate started out interesting, but it quickly became less interesting. Especially because half of the debate was about the definition of 'can'. On this point I totally agreed with pro since he backed up his definition with sources. I didn't understand the dictionary bias con was talking about. I googled, but I wasn't able to find it. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the fact three dictionaries say something similar proves that the word 'can' has a very clear definition, which means con's definition of 50+ probability is just nonsense. Because of the semantics I would give pro the conduct point, but since he also made some personal attacks the conduct point went back to the tie.

The arguments point was easy to give. Pro started off with some interesting points. Then he shot himself in the foot by stating the debate is no longer fun for anyone. Just because of that con got the arguments point.
It's sad things went that was, because I got the impression pro was up to something.

Anyway, pro, I always add the definitions of the blurry terms in the first round together with these two rules:
- Both debaters accept the definitions of the defined terms
- For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
In this debate the only word with a blurry meaning was 'funny'.
Posted by NikolaGustav 1 year ago
NikolaGustav
Don't mention it
Posted by Dr.1up 1 year ago
Dr.1up
They* (from my previous comment)
And thank you Nickola, I agree. I will be sure to state my definitions in R1 during the rest of my debates.
Posted by NikolaGustav 1 year ago
NikolaGustav
Dr.1up does make some interesting points. If Pro had decided to state definitions in the first round, his argument in round two would have been considerably robust.
Posted by Dr.1up 1 year ago
Dr.1up
I'm sure that are.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
It just puts it up for review by whiteflame and airmax. You should only report if you really think that it is an inadequate vote or a troll vote though because airmax and especially whiteflame are extremely busy with work and vote analysis.
Posted by Dr.1up 1 year ago
Dr.1up
I may have accidentally reported it?
I do not even know what "reporting" it would do.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Whiteflame only analyzes votes that are reported by the flag button on the vote.
Posted by Dr.1up 1 year ago
Dr.1up
And I was extending upon your extension*
Posted by Dr.1up 1 year ago
Dr.1up
And, I was extending upon your exertion :)
I said, "I don't care about winning the debate at this point, I'm simply trying to discuss the topic." in reference to whiteflame's post.
Also, I didn't report it, what are you talking about?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Stefanwaal 1 year ago
Stefanwaal
Dr.1upfamousdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: My RFD was a bit too long, so it was posted in the comments.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Dr.1upfamousdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: With lannan, he said the debate is no longer funny, making anything can be funny wrong.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Dr.1upfamousdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro states that the debate is no longer funny thus disproving the resolution that anything can be funny. Thus this debate has to go to Con.