Clarification: I messed up so the debate round's title is Mafia is not fun at all to everybody.
First off, mafia is a party game (look in the games forum here) with a ton of rules. http://en.wikipedia.org...(party_game)
Also to clarify, I am sorry for not clarifying but I will either present A. or B.
A.- I prove that the following statement is false, Mafia is not fun at all to everybody.
B.- I prove the above point and prove that Mafia is fun to everybody.
I choose A.
First off, many people like mafia so that makes the whole point illogical. I know that at least I like mafia which means that if 100% of the current generation is everybody and I like mafia so that makes at least one person.
2nd of all, even if one person likes mafia and the whole world doesn't then this statement is illogical. I will expand later on because I've had so much to do. Bye.
Not at all means the same as not and for simplicity's sake let's just use not because not at all has no opposite form. I can't say that negating the resolution would make the statement "Mafia is fun at all to everybody" true because it is grammatically nonsense and not at all is a figure of speech.
My opponent must prove, then that mafia is fun to everybody and I must prove that it's not fun to everybody.
I don't like Mafia, therefore not everybody likes Mafia. My opponent can't prove that everyone likes Mafia because I don't like it. I don't have to prove that no one takes joy in Mafia, just that not everybody finds joy in it. If the wording of the resolution were "no one has fun playing Mafia" then this would be the case but given the use of the term everybody, my opponent must prove the absolute.
I don't need to argue that but you know that I misstated the title so I am sorry. This is practically the opposite of what I meant. I am so sorry and this is the wrong title as I mentioned. If you want to debate about whether I should not in this debate debate about if Mafia is not at all fun to everybody, you're welcome too. I already know I'm going to lose but I'll give this a try. If someone misstates something in the debate, the opponents can use it against them but if someone misstates the title and refers back to it apologizing for the title getting mixed up, it's fine plus if the opponent doesn't know what the thing is then it counts as a double bonus so my opponent has to prove that Mafia is not fun to everybody because before my opponent's argument has started I have already restated the thing I actually meant. Therefore it goes back to my first argument which makes it that if all people didn't like Mafia, it's impossible because I like Mafia. Thanks.
My opponent admits that he fudged the title of the debate and is thus switching sides. This mislead me in accepting it and thus makes any further argument on his side abusive because I entered into it on false pretenses. My understanding was that I'd be arguing that Mafia is not fun to every individual, whereas my opponent has changed the meaning of the debate to the opposite. I call abuse. Vote pro.
Is this abuse? Really I did fudge the title but the problem is my opponent didn't even know what mafia was. He calls what I did abuse. Abuse: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abuse: improper or excessive use or treatment : misuse. Did I do any of the following? Nope. I won the argument, tie the conduct point and VOTE CON.
Abuse is a debate term for a situation in which one side puts an impossible burden on the other.
This debate is clearly a case of abuse as my opponent has switched the meaning of the resolution and thus the sides we are arguing. As such, I can't fulfill the burden he places on me because 1.) I accepted the debate in anticipation of arguing that mafia is not fun to everyone and 2.) He can't switch the terms of the debate in the second round.
The problem is not with my knowledge of the game Mafia, it's with my opponent's blatant abuse and attempted redirection of the resolution partway through the round.