Are normal skittles better than sour skittles

"My opponent, arguing the affirmative and instigating this debate, will have the sole burden of proof to demonstrate to us conclusively why normal skittles are objectively better than sour skittles. Note that, because I do not possess the BOP, I don't need to prove to you either that sour skittlers are superior to normal skittlers or that the two are equal. Rather, if those remain options on the table that my opponent has not properly refuted, or if I am able to negate his points so that he cannot fulfill his burden of proof, he cannot win the debate. So let's begin by defining Skittles. Though there are definition of "skittles' -- lower case "s" -- I am fully aware that he is referring to the proper noun, Skittles, which is reflected in his opening piece. My advice to Pro is that, in future debates, he specify precisely which he is referring to. "Skittles is a brand of fruit-flavored sweets, currently produced and marketed by the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, a division of Mars, Inc. They have hard sugar shells which car the letter S. The inside in mainly sugar, corn syrup, and hydrogenated palm kernel oil alon gwith fruit juice, citric acid, and natural and artifical flavours. The confectionary has been sold in a variety of flavour collections, such as Tropical and Wild Berry. " [1. . http://tinyurl.com...]So, to recap what my opponent must do in order to fulfill his BOP: If normal skittles are (x) and sour skittles are (y), He must prove that X is, objectively, greater than (y). Therefore, he must disprove the notion that in some possible world, (y) may be greater than (x) or that (x) and (y) could be equal. In order for him to prove that (x) is objectively greater than (y), he must prove the truth of the following syllogism: P1: If (x) possesses (a), (b), and (c) criteria, it is objectively better than (y). P2: (x) possesses (a), (b), and (c) criteria. C: Therefore, (x) is objectively better than (y). The challenge, of course, is not only in establishing those criteria -- perhaps one of them is taste, for instance -- but in establishing objectively. For instance, why does one criterion establish objectivity? What if some people value tastes, whereas others value some other factor -- for instance, they view sour skittles as "innovative. " The point is, even if we were to elevate tastes to the standard by which we gauge objectivity -- and, for the record, I am not suggesting that it is plausilble that we do so, but at least consider the logic -- then we would need to accept that tastes are subjective. Let's consider a thought experiment. In the hypothetical world of Three-Letter-Names, Bob, Jim, and Tim walk into a store and can purchase either normal skittles or sour skittles. Economists will tell us that consumers are inclined to consume on their highest indifference curve. This is contingent on two factors: marginal utility and price. So, in other words, their marginal utility per dollar. The higher the marginal utility per dollar of a good, the more likey they are to purchase it. Bob has an MU/D of 15 for normal skittles and an MU/D of 13 for sour skittles. His MU/D for normal skittles is higher. Therefore, he will purchase normal skittles. Jim has an MU/D of 17 for normal skittles and an MU/D of 21 for sour skittles. His MU/D for sour skittles is higher. Therefore, he will purchase sour skittles. Tim has an MU/D of 19 for both normal and sour skittles. Therefore, he is indifferent to whether or not he purchases normal or sour skittles. So there are a few takeaways from this experiment: (1) Tastes are subjective. Bob, Jim, and Tim had different marginal utility/dollar functions, meaning that a unit of either kind of Skittles provided a different level of utils, or pleasure, for them per dollar spent. Because tastes are subjective and people will disagree on which they prefer or think is better, it simply wrong to say that one kind of skittles is objectively better than another. (2) Tastes and quality are extremely difficult to measure. Have you ever tried to quantify your tastes, which are seen as a predominantly qualitative variable? Granted, people do it, but they may used ordinal variables such as "good," "excellent," "superb," and so forth. Not only can we not gauge what factors weighed into a person's individual marginal utility functions, but we can't accurately predict how Tim would behave in this situation. We've established that he is indifferent to whether or not he will purchase normal skittles or sour skittles. Therefore, we cannot make an objective statement in either direction. At this point, the resolution has been negated. However, I will respond to my opponent's opening remarks. Pro states, "The reason I like normal skittles better than sour is because the sour ones hurt my mouth, charge more and the sugar on the outside melts in my hands. "My first observation from Pro's statement is that he makes it clear that the justification he is offering is his own opinion. Indeed, he is entitled to his opinion. But in admitting that it is his own opinion, he tacitly concedes a few things: (1) He is arguing from subjectivity, rather than objectivity. (2) Tastes are subjective. (3) Others may disagree with him He states that sour skittles hurt his mouth, cost more, and the sugar on the outside melts in his hands. First, he has provided no evidence as to the relative cost of normal and sour skittles, so on face value, we can discard this claim. But it becomes even more clear that we can throw it out based on what I have presented earlier: people value different criteria. Some may factor cost directly into their marginal utility functions (that is, something provides a higher marginal utility because it costs less). Others, perhaps more affluent people, may be indifferent to cost. So this point is moot on an objective scale. Next, he claims that the sugar on the outside "melts in his hands. " I have never seen this happen myself, but I will take his word for it. How exactly does this make sour skittles objectively worse than normal skittles? Again, Pro may hold this opinion, but plenty of others may disagree with him, perhaps because they have had different experiences than him and have never seen this happen, or even would dispute whether in fact it could or does happen. This is, once again, not a criterion to establish objectivity. He then argues that sour skittles hurt his mouth. The same case occurs here. First, I've never seen that happen to anyone, and I've eaten sour skittles before, so I would love some evidence for his point other than an anecdote. Next, people may disagree because this has never happened to them and they may, once again, dispute whether it does or could happen -- in this case, I am one of these people. Then, even if we grant that it does or could happen -- and I'm only going to grant it as a possibility, because I've never seen it -- then some people may choose not to care, or to view it differently, or to take precautions to prevent it from happening because their MU/D funtion is higher for sour skittles than for normal skittles. Once again, this is not a criterion for establishing objectivity. So, my argument can be summarized as follows: P1: If there is a discrepancy in defining the criteria to establish objectivity, and even implicit subjectivity within those criteria, (x) can not be objectively better or worse than (y). P2: There is clearly a discrepancy with respect to both defining the criteria and subjectivity implict within those criteria. C: Therefore, (x) can be not be objectively better or worse than (y). With this in mind, the resolution cannot be upheld and Pro cannot fulfill his burden of proof.