Aviators is the Best Artist (Please be kind and thoughtful!)

I'd like to take the first part of my argument to object loudly and enthusiastically to something my opponent says in his argument--"Oh yes, by the way, this is not like any regular debate. Arguments on if he is the best artist cannot be based on just only facts and media recognizance and popularity and all that. As the owner of this debate, I proclaim that it's what's INSIDE that really affects the debate. Meaning, what's inside the music of the so-called "best artist" that I'm talking about."One side cannot simply "proclaim" what the criteria for best artist are in the second round of the debate. No specific terms were defined in the comments, the subject, or in round 1. My opponent may argue that it is what is inside is what makes an artist good, but he cannot "proclaim" that this is the criteria for the debate in the second round. Any argument which proves or disproves that Aviators is the best can be used, no preference should be given to inside or outside. Now that I've said that, I will make the case that Aviators are not the best artist. I could argue that my opponent never said they were the best musical artist and that, as a result, he has stated that Aviators are better than all artists in history, Leonardo and Michelangelo among them, but I will refrain from petty semantics. Let's start by defining best as an adjective.Best-1) better than all others in quality or value2) most skillful, talented, or successful3) most appropriate, useful, or helpfulAs a superlative of good, best means4) excelling all others5) most productive of good : offering or producing the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction http://www.merriam-webster.com...;Definition 3 kind of doesn't really apply to music and since my opponent doesn't make that case that Avaitors fits this definition I will ignore it.(NOTE: I typed out a full 8000 character argument and saved it pending review, and when I came back all I had was this. I am slightly discouraged so I will make a much weaker case this round but I have 5 so I'll make up for it I'm sure)My opponent has admitted that Tyler shaw is not the most talented artist, so we can infer he is also not the highest skill."Yes, sure I can mean "best artist" in many ways, such as "most talented" or "hardest worker" or probably "musician with best messages", but NO! I don't mean any of those things individually, because Aviators is none of those things -- completely, anyway."We can observe other stats that show he is not the most successful. Currently the Beatles hold that record. http://en.wikipedia.org...;Clearly Avaitors does not fit definition 2, or 4, and since Avaitors is not the most talented, successful, skillful, and does not excell all others we can see that he does not make the highest quality art. Since the highest quality (how good or bad something is) would be the most successful, talented, or skillful, and therefore the best. My opponent concedes right off the bat that he is not the best by these definitions. And evidence in these categories shows Avaitors isn't the best as well; Avaitors does not sell many records and does not have many fans, many artists have more fans and are more successful. I do not think I need to post links but I will anyway.http://www.rollingstone.com...;http://www.merriam-webster.com...;http://en.wikipedia.org...;So we can all agree that by the numbers Avaitors is not the best. The only objective point my opponent brings up is fan base size. Ostensibly every time Avaitors makes an album he gains fans. I don't really know how to measure fans because Avaitors is actually such a small musician he does not have any typical pages or records anywhere besides his own pages. The only place I could find a number is youtube. Avaitors has 50000 subscribers, which may not be totally accurate (it probably is because bronies is an internet thing, so most listeners would be on youtube/the internet). Justin Beiber's channal has 2.6 million subscibers, so that is a definitive measurement that Avaitors isn't the best. My opponent also says that Avaitors puts the most work into his art. My opponent also pointed out that he once made a EP in 4 days. I think it is safe to say that other artists put more work into their albums than Avaitors, or they put in the same amount of work. It is hard to measure objectively, unless you look at the time it takes to make an album, and if you do look at that than Brian Wilson wins with Smile, which took 40 years to make (1966-2004). In any case, 4 days is not the most work you can put into anything, so saying he puts the most work in and is therefore the best cannot be proven really and if it could be it would be wrong. The amount of work Pop musicians put in is irrelevant, because there are lots of other forms of music that put far more work in than pop musicians (and who is to say pop musicians don't put in work?). http://en.wikipedia.org...;The main point for Avaitors being the best is that my opponent really, really likes them, and they've affected his life and touched the lives of the fans and so on, he is inspiring, he makes people "believe he is the best of the best" because of "something in his music". It is impossible to prove that he is the best because people, my opponent included, think he is the best. It is a logical fallacy. You cannot test or prove that hypothesis. Simply believing something is the best doesn't make it so. By the logic that my opponent uses, my favorite band is the best. If my favorite band was At The Gate (regarded as the pinnacle melo-death and the inspiration of metalcore), all I would have to say is "At the Gates is the best because of what is INSIDE the music". Following the logic of my opponents argument I would arrive at the same conclusion. It is the best because I think it is the best. That is circular and it is an opinion. It is impossible to prove that. It is the problem people have proving anything with no evidence. You can't prove God by belief, you can't prove ghosts exist by belief, you can't prove Avaitors by belief. My opponent also asserts that pony artists are the best. That is as fallical as he point that Avaitors are the best. It is an opinion. He offers no proof. It is not so simply because he says so. He says that it is simple, there is simpler music, so if that is the reason than pony music is not the best. Basically, since my opponent cannot argue anything objective and only defends avaitors with his and the other fans opinion that Avaitors is the best for many subjective reasons, it is impossible to really prove Avaitors is the best therefore pro should lose. I look forward to his rebuttal.