Pro ~ Round 1

Definitions from dictionary.com:

"sense of humor

noun
the trait of appreciating (and being able to express) the humorous; "she didn't appreciate my humor"; "you can't survive in the army without a sense of humor" [syn: humor]
"

"ul·ti·mate·ly Audio Help (ŭl'tə-mĭt-lē) Pronunciation Key
adv. At last; in the end; eventually."

I don't think anyone will actually accept this debate, but oh well.

I am going to prove that using a sense of humor can affect the number of debates a debater receives.

1) http://www.debate.com/...
As you can see, in the comments section, two people sated that CON had no sense of humor. If you'll notice that PRO is winning only by two votes, there is a possibility that these two people were inclined to vote PRO because he had a good sense of humor, while CON took the debate seriously.

2) A sense of humor can also distract a voter from that debater's actual argument, which may not be good enough to rebut an opponent's points, etc. That voter might then vote for that debater, thinking his or her argument was stronger because it was funnier.

Con ~ Round 1

First of all, if I was an uptight debater, I would take this as a personal attack on my debating skills since it is one of my other debates that I participated in. Now on to the argumentation.

1) First of all, although your theory is interesting, I want to direct your attention to the rounds of the debate. If you look, my opponent had forfeited his middle speech and brought forth several arguments that I was unable to refute in his final speech. Maybe the people voting for me meant to vote for me because they saw this exact thing.

Also, I said in my second speech and in the comments section after the debate that this was meant to be funny and NOT SERIOUS. Every single debate I've had has been uptight and I was hoping to have an opponent that would do the same thing as me, make a funny debate. However, as I mentioned before, my opponent's forfeit ruined the entire round for my argumentation. I'm pretty sure, if anything, I should be winning the round by a lot more. I believe that a forfeited round should mean an automatic loss, but that's just my opinion. However, the voters of the round may have voted on this.

2) In a debate as ridiculous as Hillary Clinton vs. Manbearpig, the argumentation should be funny and not distracting. If you have ever seen Lewis Black's Root of all Evil, they are able to take similar debates, make them funny, but, nonetheless, they still have decent arguments.

The only thing that comes from this debate is that there are too many uptight people, no offense, but they just need to be able to differentiate a joke from a fact. I hope that anyone voting on this sees that my argumentation was ruined in the other debate and that there is a true difference between a joke and real life. If a debater is truly superior, it will show in the argumentation and thus they will win the debate. Thank you

Pro ~ Round 2

Sorry, I didn't know you already had a debate like this. (I suppose you accepted this one because you won the other one XD) Thanks for accepting.

1) Can you post a link to that debate, since I can't find it in your debates? It would help me alot with this point (as I can't rebut without looking at the circumstances).

2) If you say argumentation should be purely funny in a ridiculous debate, then you agree that humor can affect the number of votes a debater can receive, because they will vote on the funnier debate.

Con ~ Round 2

1) To clear up some of the confusion, I'm the debater that is winning in the debate that you used as an example in your first speech. This is where my argumentation is coming from.

2) If it is a ridiculous debate, such as the one in question, then the better argument is the funnier one, but it's still the better argument. I see where you are going with with this argument, but if it is a serious debate, then humor doesn't play a role and usually the better debater will win. Therefore, no matter the debate, the better argument always wins. The humor just makes it more interesting to read.

If you look at the debate in question and the arguments posted by the two debaters, the better debater, who obviously has the better arguments, wins the round. Thank you

Pro ~ Round 3

1) It's entirely possible (and probably the case) that there were votes based on your reasons, but you using Manbearpig and comparing it to Hillary Clinton, is funny (as is your debate) and that could also be a reason that people voted for you.

2) It's possible that humor can still play a role, even if the debate is about a serious issue. Especially if some people are too lazy to analyze it all, they may just vote for the funnier person.

Also, to look at the debate (the manbearpig one), people comment that "CON has no sense of humor!", etc. possibly leading them to vote against him because he took a joke debate seriously, and you treated it with the correct sense of humor. Thus, the sense of humor can affect the number of votes either one of you received, proving my point.

"A debater's sense of humor CAN ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives."

^ This is the issue at hand, and "CAN" is emphasized because it means, "it is possible that a debater's sense of humor will ultimately affect the number of votes." Which I have proved.

Con ~ Round 3

1) I will give you that it is POSSIBLE that I won because I was funny, but not necessarily the case. You provide only shallow analysis on the topic yourself. You don't account for the poor argumentation by opponent and the inability of my opponent to comprehend the point of the debate. You see, you have to look at all aspects of the debate before you can just make a blatant statement such as, "A debater's sense of humor can ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives."

2) First of all, you don't really address my ridiculous debates argument and I would just like to point that out. Secondly, the "lazy" people you mentioned before wouldn't be willing to read the entire round if they are that lazy and would probably just read the topic and vote. Those who are willing to read the round out entirely would be willing to vote on their analysis. If I unfairly won that debate, it's because people agree with me on the topic, but didn't read the argumentation.

The two comments on my debate prove nothing. Although it is more likely that they voted for me, they never said who they voted for. Furthermore, they may have voted for me because my opponent didn't get the point of the debate, which was meant to be funny, friendly bantering between both sides. And since my opponent didn't debate the point of the topic, they may have voted the side who actually had debated the topic.

You have proved nothing my friend. All you have done is given a very shallow analysis of my debate, trying to sway it in your favor. If you look at that debate, I may have added humor, but I also put more effort into the round and was unfairly attacked in my opponent's final speech. If you look at the round as a whole, I was the better debater and that is why I won. If people actually read through the entire debate, they will vote on who they believe is the better debater and thus humor has nothing to do with the outcome.

I thank you for all your time.