The Instigator
girr29
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
zakkuchan
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Having bad table manners makes you a less liked person.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,221 times Debate No: 3912
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (13)

 

girr29

Pro

Round 3:

(23) Having bad table manners makes you a less liked person.

PRO: girr29 (vs) CON: Zakkuchan

Alright, I look forward to a good round and I look for a good discusion about why having bad table manners makes you a less liked person.

I will first start off by defining a few key terms from the Funk dictionary.

Table Manners: conventional behavior expected of people while dining.

Less: to a smaller extent, amount, or degree.

Liked: to regard with favor; respect of character.

Person: a human being expected to have good behavioral patterns as conditioned by culture.

Now we will move on to my case.

I: Indepth look into the wording of the resolution.

A: Table manners as defined earlier, is conventional behavior expected of people while dining. So to have bad table manners would be to have bad behavior while dining. So the obligation of the pro in this round is to proove that if you have bad behavior while dining that you will indeed, be liked by less people.

B: Just so there's less muttled debate in this round, I will go over what less and liked truly mean. Less, as defined earlier, is to a smaller extent, amount, or degree. Liked, as defined earlier, is to regard with favor; respect of character. So to be less liked would mean your respect or how people favor you, will be put to a smaller extent, amount, or degree. So if I can proove that people will like you less because of bad table manners, then the pro will win this round.

C: I've had debates in the past where debates have surged over obvious words, and just so the round is less confusing and more about the resolution, I do believe that my definition of person, a human being expected to have good behavioral patterns as conditioned by culture, should be the definition that holds throughout the round. This argument is just to avoid arguments that may say a person could be an insect or something else like that.

Now let's move on to the bulk of the case.

II: Different examples of what bad table manners are and why people would less like you because of it.

A: Burping, belching, and any other bodily noises such as "breaking the ice" would be viewed as impollite at a table. Anybody I know would tell you that yes they are insulted when somebody does make such bodily noises and that yes, they would think less of them and not favor them as much when they make these noises while dining. As a column in the New York Times said in July of 2006, "Not only do basic and fundamental lines get crossed when people decide to show off their bodily noises while eating at a table, but the person in question may be looked as a slob and a pariah amongst those at the table." So you'll just see from this column that people will be less liked if they committ a bad table manner such as burbing, belching, and yes even "breaking the ice".

B: Eating with your mouth open is also extremely rude and another example of a bad table manner. If a man took a woman on a date and continiously ate with his mouth open, the woman would probably be insulted, not like him as much.....if not at all, and not want to associate with the man any more. So furthermore that once again shows why table manners will make you a less liked person and if a person doesn't work on them, they might cost themselves when it comes to impressing people when out at dinner.

C: Picking your nose, sneezing without covering it up, or coughing without covering it up are also examples of bad table manners. When somebody sneezes or coughes around me without covering it up, I am personally insulted and I do think less of them. I think that my opponent would have to agree that if somebody was sitting next to him while dining and they kept on sneezing or coughing without covering it up, he would be disgusted and not like them as much. And as for picking your nose, I know many people that are disgusted when somebody does that around them. Not only is it viewed as a bad table manner, but a just flat out a bad manner that people hate, and I do believe people think less of someone when they do that.

D: Laying back in your chair lazily, laying your elbows on the table, and loosening your belt while eating are also viewed as bad table manners. All of these show more slobish ways of presenting yourself at a table while dining. If someone is trying to impress another peron, like in an interview, a date, a work get-together, or many other things, they would not want to present themselves by laying around and acting like a lazy slob at the table.

There are many more examples of what bad table manners are, but I think I've laid out a nice range of what bad table manners are and why people will be less liked if they decide to committ such bad table manners while dining. The rest of my case will just be basic contentions, that will show some analysis of how this resolution should be viewed and what should be voted on.

III: Subliminal studies show people are less liked -
A psychologist, David Adler, conducted a study in the 90s about subliminal messages and how things such as bad table manners can negatively effect the subconscious of others towards another. In this study he continued to talk about how if bad table manners are the first impression that one has towards another, it will negatively effect them throughout the relationship between one another because that person will view the other as a person with horrible table manners. So because subliminally and because the first impression can be destroyed because of bad table manners, I do believe that shows why a person is less liked if the have them.

IV: Resolutional Analysis to consider -
Although I don't think it's necessary to win this debate round, I can bring up the fact that bad table manners could imply any bad behavior while dining. So that means if I was sitting at a table with a man named John, and six other people, and John killed the six other people, I wouldn't like him as much and therefore his bad table manners of killing six people would led to the resolution being true. Although this may be viewed as extreme, I do believe that killing people is a bad behavior and that yes killing people can happen while dining, so that's why killing people can be a bad table manner. So I think that this resolutional analysis can be accepted. Whethere I win the argument on this resolutional analysis doesn't win or lose the round for me, it's just another reason that I do believe prooves having bad table manners makes you a less liked person.

V: Observational Argument of the Round -
Generally bad behavior leads to less respect, and that doesn't stop while eating. In society, you are expected to behave in an appropriate way. If you fail to act in such an appropriate way, you will not be liked as much, and you will be respected less. While eating at a table if you do such things as I listed in my 1st contention, you will obviously not be liked as much. If I saw someone breaking the ice, picking their nose, or laying back like a slob in their chair I would be insulted, and I would not like them more, I would not think of them the same, I would indeed think less of them. And that is why right there the Pro wins the round, because pure and simple if you have bad behavior at a table, they can generally expect that they will be less liked.

Again, look to my points about the resolution, my points about bad table manners, how psychologically people view bad table manners, and look to my resolutional and observational analysis arguments that I have already made.

Judges, think about how you actually perceive people who do disgusting things like this. The resolution implies that they committ multiple bad table manners with the plural in it and if people do committ bad table manners, I think you must agree that they will be less liked and therfore I proove the resolution true. If you read through the arguments you will see why the Pro wins the round.
zakkuchan

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me, and I'm sure this will be a fun Round 3.

Let's start with the definitions. I agree with my opponent's definitions of 'less' and 'liked' (though, as an aside, 'liked' should be "regarded with favor..." rather than "to regard with favor..."). I also agree with his definition of 'table manners', though I would note that many things that are considered table manners are more "conventional behavior" than "behavior expected of people". I take serious issue with my opponent's definition of 'person', however. The concept that personhood relies on cultural expectations is seriously flawed; indeed, you have to dig pretty deep into the definitions for 'person' found on dictionary.com to find anything like that. Rather, these definitions seem to be in general consensus that 'person' just means 'human being', so that's what I'll stick to.

Now to my opponent's case:

I. Wording of the resolution.

A. My opponent says that "to have bad table manners would be to have bad behavior while dining." Not at all, actually; to have bad table manners means not to conform to traditional standards of acceptable behavior while dining. In other words, it means that your behavior is 'bad' in the eyes of tradition; this doesn't make the behavior bad, per se.

B. No problems here, but I'll examine the PRO's burden while looking at his second point.

C. No worries about defining 'person' as an insect, but see above to see what I think of the definition the PRO presented.

II. Examples.

I have two major problems with this whole point.

First, my opponent's examples are just that, examples. My opponent fails to look at bad table manners in general, and discuss why they would make someone less liked. The resolution doesn't say, "There are particular bad table manners that can make someone less liked"; it requires much more than that from the PRO. If the PRO fails to prove the statement made by the resolution, and instead focuses on particular instances of it, then he has not come anywhere near fulfilling his resolutional burden.

Second, all of these examples come from Western (and particularly American) concepts of table manners. These examples cannot be applied to the resolution. It doesn't say, "Having bad table manners as defined by Americans makes you a less liked person if you're eating in America". Again, my opponent is trying to constrict the debate, not only by just looking at particular examples instead of the broader issue, but also by focusing solely on American examples.

III. Studies.

After quite a bit of research, I've given up on trying to find this study. I ask my opponent to cite it next round so I can look into it. However, I can make an important line of attack based on what my opponent said here. Apparently, this study shows that table manners can set a bad first impression. I could argue against that, but it's not necessary, because this doesn't have anything to do with the resolution. My opponent himself said that he must prove that "your respect or how people favor you, will be put to a smaller extent, amount, or degree" if you have bad table manners (IB). However, in this point, my opponent claims that table manners can keep someone from becoming more liked; this is very different from making someone less liked. People not wanting to get to know you and like you better is not the same as people losing favor or respect for you; they never had it in the first place, because they don't know you yet (since we're talking about first impressions). The reaction of a person who likes someone else upon finding out that that person has bad table manners was apparently not what was being studied, according to what my opponent said – but that's what we're really talking about in this resolution. This entire point, then, falls, as completely nonresolutional.

IV. "Resolutional Analysis" about murder.

This point is just plain ridiculous. My opponent's own definition of table manners says that we're talking about behavior "while dining" – this implies that the behavior has something to do with dining. Murder is a completely different thing. That wouldn't be simply unconventional or unexpected; it would be flat-out wrong, for reasons having nothing to do with dining or etiquette. This line of "reasoning" should not be accepted.

V. "Observational Argument".

My opponent makes the claim that "Generally bad behavior leads to less respect, and that doesn't stop while eating. In society you are expected to behave in an appropriate way. If you fail to act in such an appropriate way, you will not be liked as much, and you will be respected less." My opponent again equates bad table manners to bad or inappropriate behavior; I've already shown why that's flawed (see IA). But at least, here, it sounds at first as though my opponent may be getting into a point that actually touches on the resolution. But then, to back up his claims (which is certainly necessary), he reverts back to the particular examples he presented earlier, which I have already proven to be flawed, since they don't take into consideration table manners in general, or even examples from places other than America. He doesn't add any additional analysis to try to connect his particular examples to the point he's trying to make; he just puts the general observations of the first few sentences in close proximity to his examples and hopes the reader will assume they're tied together somehow. To make matters worse, he uses his own feelings on table manners as "proof". This point is simply full of issues.

Overview – Basically, my opponent has tried to prove the resolution through looking at particular examples of it rather than the statement itself; discussing how table manners can keep someone from becoming more liked rather than how they can make someone less liked; and attempting to make connections between points simply by putting them next to each other, rather than through logical analysis. My opponent's case is flawed, and he has failed to uphold the resolution.

Now onto my own case. I only have a couple thousand characters left, so this will be fairly short.

1. Cultural Relativism.

a. Table manners are not universal.

It's no secret that cultures around the world vary from each other, and this certainly extends to the realm of table manners. For example, many table manners in Asian countries deal with the use of chopsticks; and in France, using salt and pepper is seen as an insult to the cook's abilities. Because of the wide variety of table manners worldwide, looking at American examples and ignoring the rest of the world fails to hold up the resolution. The resolution is, above all, an incredibly broad statement – too broad to be upheld with particular examples.

b. Table manners often conflict with one another.

When looking at table manners around the world, there are many examples of things that are seen as good table manners in one place, and bad table manners in another. For example, in Japan, good table manners involve consuming soup straight from the bowl, while in America good table manners dictate the use of a particular type of spoon to eat soup. Acting with any culture's set of good table manners requires violation of many table manners according to other cultures. Therefore, a person with good table manners by one culture's standards actually has horrendous table manners when all the table manners of the world are considered – yet they are certainly not less liked as a result.

2. Acting against standards actually makes you MORE liked by some.

Rebellion against traditions, institutions, and standards is all the rage these days. By having bad table manners, you show that you are not going to be held into a tightly-defined set of standards for 'proper' living. Many people these days respect that greatly.

I've run out of characters, but I've managed to get in all the major points I wanted. Thanks!!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 1
girr29

Pro

I will address the term concerns in my 1st contention as they are one in the same.

Moving on to my case then:

I: Wording of the Resolution: which as stated before are provided by the Funk Dictionary.

A: I defined table manners as conventional behavior expected of people while dining. Bad is defined as not proper, out of order, or not suitable. Since "bad table manners" is not a term found in Funk or any dictionary that I am familiar with, then we'll have to except a fusion of the two definitions. I don't believe it is outrageous for me to say bad table manners mean unsuitable behavior of people while dining.

B: He Agrees.

C: My definition of person, a human being expected to have good behavioral patterns as conditioned by culture, still holds up. I do agree that different cultures have different standards, but the resolution doesn't demand that there is one set of table manners. My examples show perspective in America, but I will discuss the cultural differences shortly.

My opponent never reveals his source for his terms, he references dictionary.com in one point, but I would appreciate if he could provide his source to them. Until I uphold the definitions, because I proove why they uphold in my arguments, and because I'm the only one with sources to them.

II: Examples

Off of his points he made against my contention:
The examples are meant to show how people are less liked if they have bad table manners, you never deny they do that. And as stated in my second contention analysis, that it is impossible to name every single bad table manner, but I listed many, and I show why generally people will be less liked if they use bad table manners. Now if my opponent wants to be picky and demand that I culturally show every single bad table manner from every culture, then all my characters would be wasted towards a fraction of listing them. I use U.S. customs because we are both Americans and can both relate to them and we can both know why they are innopropriate. If you want me to discuss every single international custom, then that is abusive on the Con's part. I think both of us can agree that most cultures have general guidelines as to what good and bad table manners are. And if you bring up the argument that some cultures dont have table manners, that doesnt destroy the Pro's arguments. We know that table manners exist in many regions of the world, and wherever they are, people are expected to follow them. And so if a person has bad table manners in a region with cultural or traditional table manners, I do believe they will be less liked in that region, because they did something that was out of order, and not proper in that region's table manner guidelines. And if a person steps outside of their region's table manners and has bad table manners somewhere else, they will not be liked as much there, because that region expects a certain level of appropriate behavior while dining.

III: Studies

The study is from a Baylor Briefs Debate Research Packet, which I found in the debate room at my high school, the source is solid, and I can assure you that it does have relevancy to this debate round. Liked, as you agreed with is to regard with favor; respect of character. Therefore Hated, the opposite is defined as, the state of being disliked (Funk). The reason I bring up this is because when you meet a person for the first time you have a certain in the middle...don't really know feeling of if you'll like them or not. If you start their impressions by having bad table manners, they will know that they will not like you therfore decreasing their levels of like (from not sure, to, hate). That is why the study still upholds and it still shows why people will like people less if they have bad table manners.

IV: Resolutional Analysis

Because my definiton of what bad and what table manners are, my RA still holds. The combo def. is inappropriate behavior expected of people while dining. I'm going by the guidelines of what the definition are. But my RA doesnt only include murder, I could decide to put a cat on the table and it would be seen as rude and not acceptable behavior. If my opponent tries to bring up that I cant show what all table manners around the world are again here, I would urge you to see my side and what impossible burden he puts on me if he says that I cant proove that puting a cat on a table might be viewed differently in various cultures.

V: Observational Analysis and Overview

If it wasn't already clear, my opponent has been extremely rude throughout his writings, which includes his argument against my fifth contention. The point of my observational analysis is to look at the round, see how the arguments connect and why I proove the resolution true. And because I want to take the high road I will tell you why the Pro should win the round, instead of trying to cheaply undermine my opponent's intelligence and throw up smoke screens to actual debate, like my opponent has chosen to do. My defintions still uphold as I've explained, but as for the arguments, my examples show how Americans like each other less if others committ these bad table mnners. Because it is impossible to show every single country, I provide solid analysis of the one we both live in that prooves that the resolution is true. He calls my Study unapplicable, he calls my RA unapplicable, but you see he never disprooves these points truly wrong, just that they are unapplicable, and I think I've shown why they are applicable, they can be in this debate, so he is actually the one truly avoiding the debate at hand about bad table manners. Finally he insults my intelligence in the OA, and throughout the round, and I was looking forward to a clean, fun debate, but I guess that doesn't always happen.

Against his case now

I: Cultural Relativism

A: I've explained that this is abusive before, but furthermore that even if I was able to list all of the cultures, that it would still be seen that people in those regions will not like each one another if somebody has bad table manners, because it's unsuitable behavior expected of people while dining.

B: As I explained before, if a person from region A goes into region B, and region B has more sophisticated manners, then they will be less liked in region B. It may not be fair, but the resolution doesnt call for fairness, it calls for truth, and the truth is that if you have table manners that are considered bad table manners in that other region, then you will be less liked.

II: Acting against standards, liked by some

My opponent earlier was asking me to debate this topic on a general level, and consider that the "rebellions against good table manners" would be seen as a very small percentage compared to the ones that accept table manners as what they are. Because a rebellion against something wouldnt be a rebellion if there were more against something than for, rather the ones against good table manners would be in the minority...but considering that we can at least assume that 75% of people are in favor of good table manners, and 25% are for bad (numbers are probably more like 90-10), but just for example, that means 75% of people wouldn't like you, which implies a majority of people would like you less, or plain just dislike if you comitt bad table manners. So that prooves the resolution correct, that having bad table manners makes you a less liked person, because a majority of people wouldnt like you.

I wrapped up my case in my OA rebuttal argument, please read that for a conclusion of my points, and see why I proove the resolution true and all he prooves essentially...is that he likes to insult me and call my arguments unapplicable, but you will see that my points are applicable.

I hope my opponent debates the actual resolution more in the next speech, stops trying to ignore the actual debate at hand, and takes a higher road then insulting his opponent's intelligence.

Thank You.
zakkuchan

Con

Overview – My opponent misinterpreted a lot of what I had to say in my first round. I never insulted his intelligence – indeed, if calling an argument nonresolutional or confronting the logical flaws with it is insulting to one's intelligence, then that happens in any meaningful debate. I also never asked him to address every single table manner of every single culture, and I agree that that would be a ridiculous burden. Indeed, all I asked is that he confront the nature of table manners and what inherently makes someone less liked as a result of having bad table manners, rather than particular examples. Examples can be used to illustrate a point, but not to make a point all on their own, which is what my opponent did in his first round (II).

Now onto his case:

I. Wording.

A. My opponent conceded the point I made here later in the debate – in (IV) he says bad table manners mean "inappropriate behavior expected of people while dining". As I said, this doesn't make the behavior bad per se, just bad in the eyes of convention, like a rich white southerner not owning slaves in the 1800s.

C. The only definition I presented was that 'person' means "human being"; I cited it as coming from dictionary.com, because it was a composite of all the definitions I found there. I figured that would be enough, but I can post the definitions as they appear on the site for clarity.

Person

from dictionary.com's own dictionary - "a human being, whether man, woman, or child"
from the American Heritage Dictionary - "A living human."
from WordNet - "a human being"
from the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary - "a human being"

I think it's rather clear that simply "a human being" works as a good composite of these definitions. The point I was making here is that my opponent's definition was flawed in that it dealt with cultural expectations and the like, whereas you have to dig deep into the definitions from several dictionaries on dictionary.com to find anything like that.

II. Examples.

Again, I never asked that my opponent discuss every table manner in the world – just that he discuss table manners in general rather than particular examples, especially if those examples deal only with one culture. My opponent does address this here, saying that if someone has bad table manners, they will be less liked " because they did something that was out of order, and not proper". However, the only evidence my opponent has yet provided of this connection comes in (III), and I'll discuss that next.

III. The Study.

My point here in my first round was that the study only linked bad table manners to a bad first impression, meaning they can stop someone from becoming more liked, rather than actively making them less liked, as the resolution claims. My opponent responds to this by saying that this bad first impression in fact will make the person hated by anyone who witnesses it. Thus, he has essentially changed his claim for the debate to saying that bad table manners make someone hated, and therefore less liked. However, he hasn't stated that the study showed outright hatred after witnessing bad table manners, so such a claim is merely speculation, and goes beyond the actual conclusion of the study – that bad table manners can set a bad first impression, which I have already dealt with. Furthermore, even if we accept that there are some people out there who may be moved to outright hatred of a person due to bad table manners, I think it would be safe to assume this would be a rather small number – and I'll get back to this later, in my case.

IV. Murder and table cats.

Again, I maintain, and my opponent hasn't denied, that murder goes far beyond bad table manners. And putting a cat on a table is just another particular example of something that could be seen as bad table manners, and again this point fails to make any claims about table manners in general. Furthermore, there are plenty of people out there who love cats, and wouldn't mind at all if someone put a cat on a table where they were eating. And who, honestly, would hate someone for putting a cat on a table? My opponent makes up a straw man argument later in this point, trying to preempt a cultural relativism argument on the merits of table cats; but I have no intention of making such a claim.

V. Observational Analysis and Overview.

If a point the PRO uses to back up the resolution is nonresolutional, then it absolutely does fall. If a point has analysis to back it up, but no clear connection between the point and the analysis, then it is undermined. If a point uses the debater's own feelings on the issue at hand, then it is fallacious. If it asks the reader to think about their own feelings on the issue, then it is fallacious. I don't see how making any of these claims about a point is abusive or taking the low road. If I said, "The sky is blue, therefore the resolution is untrue," my opponent would show how the blueness of the sky is nonresolutional, and how there is no connection between it and the conclusion that I made – and that wouldn't be abusive, taking the low road, or insulting my intelligence.

My opponent has not shown "how Americans like each other less" for bad table manners – indeed, he changed this claim in (III) to saying that people hate each other for bad table manners. As I said, this was speculation far beyond what the study actually concluded; and even if it is true for some people, it's certainly not true for a very large percentage.

Onward, to my case!

1. Cultural Relativism.

a. Again, I never asked my opponent to look at every table manner in the world and discuss how it makes someone less liked. The importance of this point was to show that because of the wide variation worldwide, particular examples from American society are not sufficient to make a point. Basically, this goes back to what I've said several times before – that my opponent needs to look at table manners themselves in general, rather than particular examples.

B. The resolution doesn't stipulate that we're talking about how liked a person is in their immediate surroundings. As an American, any time you eat with good table manners according to American customs, you are violating numerous standards of good table manners of numerous cultures around the world. And doing so doesn't make you less liked. If I eat soup with a spoon, it doesn't make the entire nation of Japan hate me, despite the fact that they would see it as bad table manners. Thus, there are a TON of examples of things people around the world do every day that are bad table manners in the eyes of SOMEONE, but no one comes to hate them as a result. Even if you agree with what my opponent has said everywhere else, I have provided thousands of counter-examples to the claim made by the resolution.

2. Rebellion, dude!

My opponent has said that somewhere between 10% and 25% of people probably favor bad table manners, and between 75% and 90% of people favor good table manners. However, recall that the reasoning my opponent has provided for bad table manners making someone less liked is that it makes them hated. How many people, though, would you say would hate someone for bad table manners? 2%? 5%? I would certainly say it's probably no more than 10%. So let's consider this – as a high estimate, 10% of people would hate you for bad table manners, and as a low estimate, 10% of people would like you more for them. Therefore, even with a low estimate for the number of rebellious people, you end up right around just as liked as you were before.

I hope my opponent addresses some of the resolutional and logical points I made about his case in his next round, rather than just saying that something that happens in any good debate is insulting or abusive. I don't think this has devolved to not being clean or fun, and I don't think it has to. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 2
girr29

Pro

I'll start off by refuting the points on my case, his case, and then I will wrap up the round with why you should vote Pro.

Against Overview:

Okay the point I'm trying to make is that the point of a debate round is to have a conversation about the topic at hand and I believe as part of that, it means that you don't undermine your opponent. But Zakkuchan did that many times in his first speech, especially in the OA when he undermines my intelligence. The reason I bring up the abuse is because I wish that Zakkuchan could've actually debated the resolution, rather than trying to throw up smoke screens, such as the all countries thing, but I'll discuss that shortly.

I: Wording

A: Bad can be defined as not proper, out of order, or not suitable. Funk also defines it as wrong, not good. Seeing that the basis of inappropriate from the fusion definition of bad + table manners comes from the word bad, it would appear that bad is inappropriate. So that makes my arguments still uphold because if you do have inappropriate behavior at a table, you have bad table manners, and I do believe you will be less liked.

C: You don't have to dig that deep to find that the definition of human is expected to live in a civilized way. That is why my definition still upholds. I thank my opponent for offering a source, but I believe that my definition is still the one you must accept as it is more detailed and it is right on with what a human is, cause I mean it's what makes us separated from other species, the fact that we should act in civilized way that is.

II: Examples
I provide why in my case many different reasons why the resolution should be upheld. This includes the examples. The examples don't make my case, but they show bad table manners (in this culture, cause I can't do every culture….etc.), will make you a less liked person. I show why that in real life if you in fact have bad table manners, that people will just naturally not like you as much. I think we need to use some common sense when it comes to deciding whether or not this resolution should be voted pro or con. And I believe that if someone does something inappropriate while eating, like my examples show, that you will like them less to some degree, and therefore the resolution most be voted in favor of pro.

III: Study
My opponent makes many hasty generalizations, which is part of the reason he is being abusive, but the fact of the matter is that this study is still great to use for the round. For a few reasons, because 1) It shows in a real world circumstance, which my opponent has not presented any early evidence about the real world, and if he does it's unfair to me because I can't refute it, and 2) this evidence proves the resolution correct, because people had bad table manners, and people less liked them…whether it's a little less liking of, or hatred towards, it's still a less liking. 3) Don't buy my opponent's claim that it has to be all out hatred, because the first impression of bad table manners could be weeks or months into a relationship. I have friends that I have never eaten with, and I dont know if they have bad table manners or not, but if they did, I would like them just a little less, I would still be friends with them, but there would always be that notion that they have bad table manners.

IV: RA
Inappropriate behavior while dining, that is the definition of bad table manners. I believe if I kill someone at a table that would be viewed as inappropriate behavior while dining at a table. Now, why it may not be common, it still proves the resolution true. Because if I'm dining with my friends, and one of them pulls out a gun and kills one of my other friends, I would like them less. As for his question about who would hate someone for putting a cat on the table, it doesn't have to be hate, just has to be less liked, because that is what the resolution is. And I honestly can say with confidence, that if one of my friends put a cat on a table, that I might like them less.

V: OA and Overview
I will provide why all of my points are resolutional, though I believe I've already proven this and my opponent is just wasting time by throwing up this smoke screens to try to take attention off of the actual debate.

My 1st upholds and is resolutional because they are defined words and analysis of the words of the resolution.

My 2nd upholds and is resolutional because they are examples about the resolution that show why if you commit table manners such as these commonly accepted bad table manners, people won't like you as much. The resolution implies that you have more than one bad table manner, so that means if you commit many of these you will be less liked.

My 3rd upholds and is resolutional because 1) it is the only evidence used in the round and 2) it shows why you will be less liked, because like I explained, even if you know someone, your first impression of their table manners could make you like them less. 3) even if you haven't meet them, you can still like them less.

My 4th upholds and is resolutional because if you have inappropriate behavior at a table, you have bad table manners. Killing someone while dining would be inappropriate behavior while at a table. And you can read the rest of the reasoning for this contention and all the others above and throughout my case, but lets move to his.

I: Cultures

A: I've shown why my examples, are that, examples of why people would like you less. I offer many that show why you would be less liked. I show why in general people would be less liked because of table manners because the reason inappropriate or bad behavior becomes inappropriate or bad behavior is because people don't accept it as good. My opponent agrees that there are such things as bad table manners, and because he does, I essentially win because people don't generally accept bad behavior, and if they did, it wouldn't be bad behavior.

B: My opponent keeps on throwing out the word hate, when I only used it in one point, but it doesn't have to be hate, just less liked. Anyways, If you go in a region that has certain table manners that they expect you to have you and you don't have the proper table manners, then the people that you dine with you there will inevitably like you less. Just like if it's okay to wear hats in school A, and then you go to school B, and they don't allow hats to be worn, if you wear a hat there you will be in trouble. It's breaking the standard that is expected of you in that region.

II:
Again, it's not all out hate, it's just less liked. Anyways, look to where I just attacked his 1:A. Something bad or inappropriate implies that a majority of people don't accept it. That it is why, because if you have bad table manners, a majority of people will like you less, whether by a little, a lot, or somewhere in the middle, a majority of people will like you less.

Moving on to the Voting Issues.

I've given indepth analysis of why my case upholds and is resolutional just above. And once again I do believe you should accept them and I believe you should vote in favor of them. Then as for the cultural thing, I can't explain every single table manner in every single country, but I have explained why you will be generally disliked because of what I said against his I-A and his II. Please read through the arguments and see why Pro wins.

For my final reason as to vote for Pro
The real debate comes down to the fact that if you have bad table manners in a region that views your manners as bad, then they will like you less, and this is just by simple human nature and what is viewed as appropriate or inappropriate. This point I make in my final reason is made boldly true against his case in the paragraphs above.

And because of all of that I would urge the judges to vote Pro.

I would like to thank my opponent for the debate, and I would like to thank the judges fo taking your time to review it, I really appreciate it.
zakkuchan

Con

Overview – My opponent went back on a key claim that he made in his Round 2. Previously, I had attacked the study he provided (III), saying that all it even tried to show is that bad table manners can set a bad first impression – perhaps stopping someone from becoming more liked, but certainly not actively causing them to be less liked. In his Round 2 defense of this point, he said that the way a first impression could make you less liked was that, in fact, it would move people who have never met you to outright hatred of you. As my opponent pointed out, the study is the only "evidence" provided in this round; so its actual conclusions must be very carefully looked at. I'll get to that later (III).

As for abusiveness and insults – again, I maintain that I have done nothing beyond what happens in any good debate. My opponent says that as part of a good debate, "you don't undermine your opponent". I agree – personal attacks are a big no-no – but I never undermined my opponent. Indeed, all I undermined was his case. And if I, as the CON, am not supposed to undermine the PRO's case, then what on earth am I supposed to do? If anything, my opponent is being abusive by calling me abusive and trying to force me to accept all his reasoning as valid, since apparently that's the only way I can be non-abusive.

My opponent's case:

I. Wording.

A. My opponent says, "if you do have inappropriate behavior at a table, you have bad table manners." OK, but he's missing the point. The point is that that which is considered "inappropriate" or "bad" in the eyes of society and standards of table manners is not necessarily inherently bad. My opponent has been trying to frame the debate around the concept that bad table manners are, in fact, bad behavior – but, as I have shown, this reasoning is seriously flawed.

C. I ask anyone reading this debate to head on over here (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and here (http://dictionary.reference.com...), and see for yourself that the vast majority of the definitions of 'person' and 'human', including the first one from each dictionary, have nothing to do with society or culture. Again, my opponent is trying to frame the debate in a way that's advantageous to him; but it simply does not hold water.

II. Examples.

I have repeatedly and consistently attacked my opponent's examples by saying that they fail to say anything about bad table manners in general. The fact of the matter is, you can have "bad table manners" without doing ANY of the things my opponent has listed. Do you eat soup with a regular spoon? ZING! Bad table manners. Do you ever put your elbows on a table? I'm sorry to inform you, but you have bad table manners. And that doesn't even count all the things that other cultures would call bad table manners. My opponent, by listing these examples as though they say something about bad table manners in general, is completely missing the point – that his burden is to show how bad table manners in general cause people to like you less. And again, the only place where my opponent has tried to uphold the connection between bad table manners and being less liked is in the study, and I'll get to that next.

III. The study.

The study's conclusion was that bad table manners can set a bad first impression. My point was that all that can do is keep new people from liking you, and that it has nothing to do with people who already like you because that wasn't studied. My opponent's point was that some people can be moved to outright hatred for you if their first impression of you is someone with bad table manners. If we accept both of these as true, with a reasonable limit (10% - which my opponent hasn't disputed) on how many people would seriously hate someone for bad table manners, this works for the CON side. This is the ONLY full, logical connection my opponent has made between bad table manners and being less liked – bad table manners, therefore bad first impression, therefore hated, therefore less liked. And the connection I have made between bad table manners and being MORE liked, my opponent has accepted as true for somewhere between 10% and 25% of people. Therefore, more people like you more for bad table manners, than hate you for them. Therefore, CON wins.

IV. Murder and table cats.

Again, murder goes way beyond bad table manners. But even if we accept that murder is nothing more than bad table manners, this is once again just one example, rather than an overview of bad table manners in general. The same is true of table cats. Later in this point, my opponent tries to backtrack on his claim that people become less liked for bad table manners through becoming hated for them; but if you allow my opponent to give up that line of reasoning, then he has lost his only mechanism for people becoming less liked for bad table manners.

V. OA and Overview.

I have already covered this in my above points (I-IV).

Onto my case!

1. Cultural Relativism.

a. My opponent says, "My opponent agrees that there are such things as bad table manners, and because he does, I essentially win." Whoa there. In order to even debate this topic, one has to agree that bad table manners exist. So what my opponent is saying here is that in order to debate this topic, I must concede to him. Now, I've only been into formal debate for a couple years or so, but I'm pretty sure that's a pretty ridiculous thing to say – along the lines of what I jokingly proposed earlier, that I win because the sky is blue.

b. I keep throwing out the word hate, because it's the only full connection my opponent has made between bad table manners and being less liked (see III). And the fact of the matter here is, again, even if you stick to good table manners according to one culture, you're violating every other culture's standards. And you're NOT LESS LIKED as a result. This is a clear example of an entire massive set of "bad table manners" behaviors that do not result in being less liked. The resolution doesn't stipulate that you're in the area where your behavior is considered "bad table manners", so we can't assume that.

2. Just 'cause...just 'cause, because we're rebels, yeah!!

Again, hatred is the only way my opponent has made the connection between bad table manners and being less liked. Therefore, we must match it up against the connection I made between bad table manners and being MORE liked. When we do so, it is clear to see that more people like you more for bad table manners, than hate you for it. Thus, CON wins.

I have consistently shown why PRO's points are flawed, while providing my own points that have stood up to my opponent's attacks. The only mechanism my opponent provided for bad table manners to translate into being less liked was through outright hatred, and I have shown (without dispute from my opponent) that this consideration is outweighed by the mechanism I provided for bad table manners to translate into being MORE liked. Thus, above all, I ask the judges and voters to see that in fact, according to what has been said in this debate, bad table manners make someone more liked overall. Therefore, if you vote or judge based upon the debate itself, you clearly must vote CON.

I thank the judges, the voters, the site owner, the tournament coordinators, and my opponent for making this round possible. It's been very fun.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I wouldn't be too sure about that. If that substitution thing gets allowed for the tournament, you can get a sub to get your revenge. ;)

Anywho, NOK has a point. You ARE hugging a tree, thus you are a tree hugger. And upon closer inspection of the tree which you're hugging, you'll note that there are some scratches as well as some bark missing. Thus, one could easily conclude that you abused the tree, thus are abusive. As for the anti pirate idea, you don't seem to be dressed like a pirate, nor are you wearing an eye patch. Plus, you never say Arrggh in any of your debates. So yeah, that debate has some ground. :D
Posted by zakkuchan 8 years ago
zakkuchan
How sad. Logical-Master won't defend me. :( And I won't be able to pay him back for his lack of kindness, either, because I'm going to have to quit the tournament because I'm going to be out of town for two weeks starting Saturday. :(
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
As for all this being off topic, I wasn't aware that there was a real topic, however, I'd have to disagree with these points having no relevance. You seem averse to the notion of admitting to be a dumbass. If I am equated to you, then by your own logic, I must not be a dumbass. Thus, my reason for proving that you are a dumbass by your definition. The only way to eliminate the relevance of this argument is for you to concede to being a dumbass.

As for having made a mistake in confusing pirates with ninjas in that global warming theory, what of it? Surely you don't intend to suggest that a simple error concerning something so trivial is what constitutes one to be a dumbass, no? If that be the case, then I'm afraid I'd have to point out your claim that global warming does not exist. That, my friend, will kill your credibility in the scientific community.

As for the debate about zakkuchan, I'm afraid I'll have to decline. Feel free to challenge me on the debate as to whether or not I am a dumbass though.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
According to you?

"And since the theory is about ninja's then zakkuchan made no effort to defend his stance against pirates, therefore to this point he is anti-pirate."

The ninjas point in no way insinuated me to be a dumbass. Only the other two statements were conclusions which made me out to be a dumbass (hence the "therefore you are a dumbass. . .).

As for this roundabout way of implying that I have a mastery of logic, not in the slightest; one doesn't have to have mastery of logic to be logical just as one doesn't have to have mastery of athleticism to be considered athletic. As long as you're at the very least a novice/adept, then you can indeed take up the title of being logical. Just as one can take up the title of being a debater despite not having much experience with the sport.

As for this business about commas, as you can see in my quote provided in the previous post, I separated each category with a comma. Clearly, my intention was to separate the categories, only to be impeded by this site's inability to edit posts (as I meant to use the conjunction "or" in front of the last category) (however, the fact that the commas are present is proof of my intentions and a disproof of your description of my actions here).

Next, you go on to say that this suggests your arguments are not flawed, thus you aren't a dumbass. Here, we clearly see that you concede to the principle I had set up in the previous round. In other words, if it is shown that your arguments are flawed, it will be valid to conclude that you are a dumbass by your own definition.
Posted by NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
I like how you promptly rescinded your statement of ninjas causing global warming, when it was brought into light that that statement would indeed make you a dumbass. While your name may not directly insinuate that you have a mastery of logic, it does in a roundabout way. How can you be logical without have some mastery of logic?

Here is the definition of and from dictionary.com

(used to connect grammatically coordinate words, phrases, or clauses) along or together with; as well as; in addition to

While commas seperate items in a list, the word 'and' combines them. The commas are then no longer used for the seperation of topic, but rather for a pause.

This indeed means my arguments were in fact not flawed meaning I am not a dumbass according to my own definition. (Though I'm not saying I am a master of logic, but I have not proved otherwise thus far.) Having said this only point 1 stands.

All of this is off topic however since we were debating you being a dumbass in the first place and in no way have you proved otherwise meaning there is no clearcut evidence either way.

However since you made a mistake between pirates and ninjas, how much of what you say can we take credibly. And global warming is Bull Sh*t. It's effing 40 degrees in the middle of MAY!!!!!!!!

We should have a debate on Zakkuchan being an abusive, anti pirate, tree hugging hippy. He'll tell you "it's considered leaning because it's an aspen and I'm too much of a p4ssy to get my shirt dirty", but do you really need 2 hands to lean on a tree?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
@ zakkuchan: Ah, my mistake on the ninjas bit. :D

@ NOK Domination: According to my user name, it simply suggest that I'm a logical master. In no way does it insinuate that I have a mastery of logic. Rather, it insinuates that I am a master who thinks logically. Thus, you could say that I own a pet and happen to base one of my traits on being logical (not necessarily a master of logic).

As for including "abusive" and "tree hugging hippy" into the same categories, I believe that there are these useful grammatical tools called "commas" which help in separating "categories." In fact, if you'll read my previous post:

"Given that I'm not being a dumbass, I can only conclude that you mean he's not being abusive, anti-pirate, tree hugging hippy. Which in that case, makes plenty fo sense."

Given that arguments just now were flawed on a textbook level, I can only conclude that you yourself don't have any mastery of any sort of logical thinking (at least according to the criteria of evidence which you substantiated with your comment). Thus, the following argument goes into play.

1)According to NOK Domination, all who don't master any sort of logical thinking are dumbasses.
2) NOK Domination clearly hasn't mastered any sort of logical thinking.
3) Therefore, NOK Domination is a dumbass.

Not that I "think" you're a dumbass. To some degree, we could say that you're the one who believes himself to be a dumbass. In fact, this idea would make plenty of sense as projecting of one's own deficiencies onto others is a common practice on online forums such as this.

Although now that I think about it, the way which zakkuchan grasp that tree certainly suggest something deeper. Perhaps you're onto something about the tree hugging theory.
Posted by zakkuchan 8 years ago
zakkuchan
I accused you of being abusive because you completely refused to actually debate the topic. :P

Actually, the theory IS about pirates. Search for the Flying Spaghettti Monster and you'll see.

By the way, all the evidence acquired points to the earth getting warmer. The cause is the only thing that's really under dispute. I say it's because there are less pirates.
Posted by NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
theLwerd look at mine and zakkuchan's debate. He started crying and accused me of being abusive in the middle of the round. I was simply mocking him when I say that he's abusive.

And obviously you haven't mastered any sort of logical thinking, so you're a dumbass. And since the theory is about ninja's then zakkuchan made no effort to defend his stance against pirates, therefore to this point he is anti-pirate. And since you included abusive and tree hugging hippy into the same category as anti pirate they are true as well, making you a dumbass. Congratulations.

By the way global warming is bullsh*t and doesn't exist.
Posted by ErnieQ 8 years ago
ErnieQ
actually i think that the Pro won the round. Because he did pretty much proove in his third speech that because when something is bad, that it is not generally accepted, so that is why you will be less liked. I thought it was a pretty good round, and I think both sides are did really well, but I have to vote Pro, for that and many other reasons. Plus, I understand what the Pro is saying about the insulting intelligence thing. I think he just wanted to have a cleaner debate, then what zakkuchan made it to be, and how you present yourself as a person can make someone want to vote for you or not. I think Pro presented himself in a more professional manner, and i think he won on arguments as well.

But, nevertheless, good round both, I'm not a judge, just thought I'd give some analysis.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
I'll post my judging later today if I find time.
I think I know who I'll vote for, but I'll wait until I read over some of the debate more intently to post my decision. At least by tomorrow.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
girr29zakkuchanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
girr29zakkuchanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by tim 8 years ago
tim
girr29zakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
girr29zakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
girr29zakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by malmal16 8 years ago
malmal16
girr29zakkuchanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by FBJames 8 years ago
FBJames
girr29zakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
girr29zakkuchanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by polishgirlinar 8 years ago
polishgirlinar
girr29zakkuchanTied
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 
Vote Placed by lumpyballsIV 8 years ago
lumpyballsIV
girr29zakkuchanTied
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:30