The end result is superior to the process

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Despite the ambiguous resolution, through reading I've come to understand that the topic is essentially equivalent or very similar to Niccolï¿½ Machiavelli's famous declaration that the ends justify the means. I'll begin by looking at Pro's first argument: that good goals ought to be pursued. First and foremost, this is not an argument. It is a statement. Even if I were to agree with this declaration, it is not a contention in favor of the ends (goals) justifying the process that helps get them there. As such, this cannot be considered an argument in my opponent's favor. Moreover this statement becomes problematic when what makes a "good" goal is disputed. Pro makes a similar mistake with his second "argument" which is not really an argument at all, but a repeat of the resolution. He states "The process is only good to the extent that it achieves the end goal." That is again not a contention in Pro's favor, but instead what he's trying to prove in the first place. Nevertheless I understand what he is getting at. Pro says the value of the process is entirely irrelevant; only the value of achieving the goal (or not) matters. For instance if he takes a Camaro to visit his grandma, it matters not how cool the car he drove was but the fact that he made it to his grandmother's house. However suppose Pro had the car to get to his grandmother's house, but could not afford the gas. Now suppose Pro had the means to steal the gas money. Would visiting his grandmother be worth it and equally moral if he had to act immorally in the process to achieve that goal? Or did the fact that he stole somewhat diminish the integrity of the act? We cannot ignore what one does to achieve their goal, for it is equally if not more important than achieving the goal itself. For example, if being elected president was the final goal and more important than everything that came before that, then why do we take such care in whom we elect? The point is to make sure candidates have gained the knowledge and life experience to be able to utilize the reward of that goal. This is only possible if they endured the process to get them to that level -- otherwise they wouldn't be prepared. Before I continue, I'll point out that Pro makes the mistake again with his third "argument" considering it states merely that the end result is superior to the process. Once again, that's simply re-stating the resolution. Essentially Pro repeats that the end result is the purpose, so it must have more value than the process. While it's true that the end result is the reason the process exists, it's not true that the process is only useful if it achieves the end goal. For instance suppose I went on a diet to lose weight. I started eating healthier and going to the gym. While I did lose fat, I simultaneously put on muscle so I did not in fact lose any weight. However in the process I became healthier, stronger, more lean and got in better shape. In that way the process didn't help me achieve the goal at all, but still proved to be useful in other ways. Here's another example. The goal of an Olympic athlete is to prove to be the best in the world at their particular sport. Through hard work and dedication one can achieve this goal by winning at the games. However one can be severely helped in achieving this goal by taking steroids or other performance enhancing drugs to give them the edge. If that were the case, would achieving their goal really have the same merit as if they had persevered on their own? Obviously not. In this way the moment of "winning" or being awarded the medal isn't what makes the honor of winning great. That win is supposed to represent everything that came before that: all of the hard work and dedication that it took to get them to that point. The win/goal is about celebrating the process itself. Thanks, Pro, and back to you.