Tabula rasa is all around the fairest way to judge a debate round.

Ok, so I apologize for the untimely response.... but let us go ahead and do this... So my opponents first paragraph really doesn't have any argumentation and doesn't have much do with the debate itself. But I do have to disagree with one of his points... "I would argue that the preparation is more important than the event itself. If you spend years training to be the best sprinter in the world, in the end it does not make a whole lot of difference whether you win a medal or not: you have truly improved yourself as a person, and the medal would only be the icing on the cake, but one does not need it to prove what one did to be so successful." --I have to disagree here, many people spend years and years training to be the best at whatever they do. And when it comes down to the actual event, they want that medal or trophy or whatever they are going for. It does prove that they are the best. If say someone works at something, and tries to be the best, but still gets beat out, they will feel that all of that work that they put into the sport was wasted because it still wasn't good enough. They were still beat out by someone else, and they feel bad that it isn't them standing on the podium for the gold medal. So I agree that I am here because debate is fun, however it wouldn't be all that fun if I lost every debate that I entered in to. My opponents next point.... "People engage in debates for education; we are all on this site because we want to discuss the things that interest us. If debate were solely about competing, it surely would not exist as an activity. In fact, we must recognize that all competitive activities stem from the fact that people engage in something that betters them as a person, and they want to showcase that." People engage in debates for many reasons. Education is obviously one of them, but I will argue this point later as it is my opponents main argument. I have a friend on this website who isn't incredibly knowledgeable about many of the things he argues. And he doesn't entirely care about some of the things he argues. But he is a very debater and has won a lot of debates on this site simply because he is good at arguing. In his case, he isn't here to learn as much as he is to practice arguing. Many people (including myself sometimes) are on this site to test analytical skill against other people. To go into a round knowing less than the other person about what the topic is, and still coming on top because of the analytical skills used. Of course education is good in debate, but it isn't the entire reason for debate. With that, lets go on to my opponents case.... "anyone who takes the time to read a debate is clearly interested in the subject, and wants the debaters to know that. He or she is imparting his or her wisdom on the situation by deciding which debater was better and more correct. If the judge is not allowed to vote based on his or her own personal experience, then what is the purpose of voting? To simply pick a winner? No one wants to judge a debate if there is no purpose for it; and if one must judge from a tabula rasa perspective, then the judge has no importance in the debate other than to be an "impartial" selector of whoever upheld the rules of the game better" --My opponent states that people are obviously interested in the subject they vote on..... However, this is untrue, there are many people who read debates simply to pick the better debater. They dont really care if blue is better than pink, they just want to vote on who did a better of arguing one way or another. --He also states that there is no purpose for voting when one is tab ross. That somehow, picking a winner isnt good enough. However, again my opponent fails to realize that at the point that a judge starts making decisions based on what they 'know', they are now debating FOR one person. Judging debate is all about one thing, judging debate. We are here to see who argues better, and most times I will agree that it is the person who knows more about the topic. But when a person brings up an argument that is false, and the person drops it, that debater has conceded that argument to the other one. That person has failed to debate at that point. My opponent also states that we should vote for education to stop laziness and incorrect information in debate. However, if a person fails to point the incorrectness of another persons argument, the judge is fostering more laziness by the debater who didnt say anything because the first one at least made an argument. So you can turn laziness and incorrect info against him. (The latter will be argued farther down.) And one should not vote for the person that has failed to debate an issue. That, my friend, is unfair. At least the person who makes the incorrect argument has made an argument. It is up to the opponent in the round, to make corrections in the debate, not the judge. And further with this, say someone made the argument that WWII started in 2000, and the other person drops it. By voting against the person that made the argument is therefore rewarding the other debater, not because he made a right argument, but because he didn't make an incorrect one. Who is to say that he even knew what year WWII started in? A person who would vote as my opponents would not be voting for correct information, just not incorrect information. And at the end of his round, my opponent states that judging my way may have to go down a slippery slope (I will address that later) what about his way? Who is to say what is fact and what is not? How can one judge facts on abortion, or the existence of god? That is when things become subjective and slippery on his side. Now we come to my opponents last argument about my slippery slope. Cross apply my argument earlier about his slippery slope. There are many types of tab ross debaters, and it is up to the judge to decide how much logic they are going to bring in to the round. The only stipulation is that they are going to vote on better debating. (which I stated earlier, usually goes to the more informed debater) They will vote on the person that analytically argues the point better. I will admit that good debating does not always happen, and sometimes is rather hard to come by, and this is where I will put my opponent in another bind. What happens in a round where both debaters are incorrect? My opponent advocates that we judge for education, however, how does one do that when both debaters are incorrect? (And it happens all too often) In my scenario, we still leave room to fairly judge that round. The judge should obviously correct the mistakes post round, but not by voting on them. And with that, I end by stating again that the fairest way to judge a debate round is to be tab ross. At the point that one starts voting on education, they can become a third debater in the round helping one side or the other to win. And that is unfair, we are here to judge debate, and voting strictly on education is unfair.