That it is possible to give an objective vote for any given debate

First of all, allow me to apologise for the mishap with the formatting of my previous round. I thank my opponent for being such a good sport about that. To read the round, I encourage voters to paste the text into a text editor, where the formatting should (hopefully) correct itself.In round two I demonstrated a system for voting objectively. My opponent conceeded that the system itself worked, but argued that it was based off two premises he did not accept as being objective. In round three I answered both of them, and furthermore answered a claim my opponent made in his conclusion despite the fact it wasn't properly substantiated. In that metanarrative of the debate, you will note that my opponent did, in fact, conceed every point I made, instead focusing on the assumptions that he claimed underpin my points. Since I showed in the previous round that niether of the points were, in fact, assumptions of my model, it seems that my opponent is really just refusing to engage with my points but rather shifting his onus to a different set of points that he wants to argue.Nevertheless, I will entertain him.Who made more convincing arguments?If I had written up an absolutely and perfectly convincing argument that "2+2=4", then my argument might well be more convincing, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate topic. Burden of proof is an objective system for measuring the relevance of an argument to the debate. The winner of an argument can in turn be determined by objective measures of convincingness.The question of "Who made more convincing arguments?" is thus not the only criteria that my model uses - and remember, as pro, it's my job to defend a model of what voters should be asking, not my opponent's. Indeed, the fact that my opponent contradicted my model of how voters should vote with no further evidence is a further sign that he is shifting his onus by ignoring my case. He even tries to contradict my notion of BOP! Again - I only need to show that it is POSSIBLE for a vote on a given debate to be objective. I do NOT need to show that any given voter is doing that kind of voting.Justifying RFD CriteriaMy opponent begins the substantive part of this contention by claiming that interpretation of arguments must be derived from personal life experiences. I showed two rounds ago why that is not the case - the interpretation of an argument should be the same as the debater's interpretations of the argument, which can be objectively derived from the debate. The strength of an argument should be evaluated only insofar as the opponent's response to it. Why? Because otherwise, as I said last round, you're not evaluating the debate alone. That's why my opponent's same-sex marriage debate analogy fails - it isn't a debate because only one side of the proposition was advanced.My opponent furthermore asks how burden of proof can be objectively derived. I explained how in round two, which I still maintain my opponent has not yet read. The evidence is insurmountable by now.Finally my opponent asserts that the depth of argumentation is my model for working out whose argument is superior, despite me specifically stating last round that the depth of argumentation has nothing to do with the objectivity of an argument in the context of voting. If you'll go back to round two, you'll note that I provided an in-depth analysis of how one can determine, objectively, whose argument is superior. Basically, points that make one debater's argument objectively better than an opponent's do exist, for instance the internal consistancy of a point.My opponent has failed to show that my system of voting is not based on the debate, and thus he has not shown that the debate does not justify the vote.Infinite Regress; Practical PerspectiveMy opponent appeals to his own arbritrary standard of how to vote, which is:a) not derived from the debate, thus subjective, andb) not my model, which is what we're actually debating here (this also serves as a practical demonstration of BOP, by the way), andc) no longer an example of infinite regress, proving my pointInfinite Regress; Philosophical PerspectiveMy opponent's trouble with my explanation is that "voters are not voting on the agreements, they are voting on the disagreements." While it is true both debaters disagree on the motion, the debaters do agree on what they wrote in the debate. Voters are not evaluating who is right or wrong about the motion (which is what the debaters disagree about) but on whose arguments for the motion were superior. While they may disagree about whether they presented superior arguments, the fact that they do agree on one thing means that the superiority of arguments can be objectively derived without infinite regress.For example, say one debater lost an argument because they completely ignored their opponent's round two model (hint hint). The debater may think they have won the point, but the fact that they ignored the model can be objectively derived from the debate which they agree to, and thus show they never established the point's relevance to the debate. So while a debater may go back and ask "why" to an element of a vote, the fact that it is grounded in the debate as a whole (which they accept) ensures the regress stops.Interpretation of ObjectiveI did not suggest anything to my opponent except to ask him why it's relevant that my model does not assess depth of argument. Curiously, he completely ignored that and rather continues to claim that I am using objective as a relative term, which I have denied twice already.This debate is NOT about whether voting based on "who made more convincing arguments" is objective. That's not what I had to prove. I had to prove that it is possible to assign points to a winner based on objective criteria in a debate. I outlined my own model for this, and the fact that my opponent keeps refering back to "who made more convincing arguments" is even more evidence that he didn't read my round two case.ConclusionWhat I've given you in this debate is one way of determining, given only the debate, an objective winner. My opponent has ignored this and appealed to a subjective standard, to try to show standards are subjective. There's only one standard that's relevant to this debate - mine. The question for the voters is whether or not this standard is necessarily objective.I encourage voters to give my method a try and see for themselves if they come upon an infinite regress in this debate. You will not. You will be able to decide a winner objectively. Your vote will be justified. And if I win or lose an objective vote, you will still have my thanks for at least deciding this debate fairly, not according to your own personal standard. That's something that's very rare on this site, and to my mind at least very valuable.Thank you all for an entertaining debate!