Cast wrong vote on debate "Truth is relative"

SPELLING AND GRAMMAR Below, I will remove any possibility of 2/3rds of my votes being proven wrong, and show that my third vote cannot be shown to be incorrect or misinformed. "Because a "tie" vote is distinctly not a "non-opinion" vote. .. By admitting that her vote was not meant to be a "tie" vote, Yvette admits that she voted wrongly and incorrectly. She also admits that she was misinformed, because she admits that she was under the impression that a "non-opinion" vote was a "tie" vote. .. a "tie" vote, on debate. org, is not a "non-opinion" vote because debate. org allows its users the alternative of not voting. Simply put, the alternative "neutral" position is not voting. If it were required that you vote on debate. org, then yes, a "tie" vote, because it is "the only possible neutral vote the site allows," would qualify as a "non-opinion" vote. " Here is how the voting system works on this site: if you submit a vote for any one point, for example "better conduct", it records all other votes as "tie". There is no alternative neutral position--and so my opponent has just argued that I am right. The only possible neutral vote the site allows for each issue *when you choose to vote for another issue* is "tie". If you wish to vote on one point you are automatically recorded as having voted tied on every point, *despite never having cast a vote on anything but one point. To put this in perspective, imagine that voters used a computer system to vote (that they had no say in designing) which only allowed them to vote Democrat, Republican, or "equally worthy", and the system automatically filled in every vote as "equally worthy" regardless of whether or not they had indicated any preference. Now someone goes in, and puts in a vote for one office, submits their vote, and leaves. No one in their right mind would consider them as having voted that every candidate is equally worthy. Nor would anyone in their right mind contend that they were actually think that every single candidate was perfectly equally worthy, 50/50. The voter had no choice but to let the very imperfect system record a vote on their behalf. Any reasonable person would interpret "tie" or "equally worthy" votes in a flawed system as "non-opinion" or "neutral", as they are the default, unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. As an aside, in both cases the total votes in favor of either party was zero and therefore should be treated as neutral votes. Let me make this clear: "if it were required that you vote on debate. org. .. " applies to this case. Debate. org's faulty system forces you to vote on issues which you have not voted on, as an automatic response to your voting to other points. Therefore my opponent's statement that "because it is ‘the only possible neutral vote the site allows,' would qualify as a ‘non-opinion' vote" debunks two-thirds of his argument. He has unknowingly agreed that I made a non-opinion vote on "sources" and "grammar". Since a non-opinion cannot be wrong or misinformed, I was not wrong or misinformed on either of those two points. MORE CONVINCING ARGUMENT Now that I have shown that my opponent cannot possibly prove my "sources" and "grammar" non-opinion votes as "wrong", I will focus on aspects of my opponent's argument related to "better argument" only unless I need to do otherwise, due to running out of characters. My opponent must prove I voted OBJECTIVELY wrong, that factually and objectively he either formed the better argument or that his argument was perfectly equal to his opponent's. "I can believe, and have the opinion, that this is not written in the English language, but that would be an opinion that is wrong. " False. The above statement is not an opinion, it is an assertion of fact. A statement of fact can be tested, an opinion is 100% subjective. Either my opponent does not understand what an opinion is or is deliberately confusing the issue. "Yvette did not respond to my arguments that my sources were more reliable. Silence, I contend, is consent. Therefore, Yvette has already begun to imply that she voted wrongly. " This is a false conclusion. I did in fact respond because if I was silently agreeing, I would not have argued the point of "references". I did argue that point, therefore I was obviously not agreeing. "Furthermore, just because RoyLatham agreed with you does not mean you are correct. Throughout history, the minority has often been correct. In this case, I am the minority. " My argument does not rest on this point, however I will say that my opponent has misunderstood the point. His agreeing with me does not make me correct, it lends authority to my defense that I was not misinformed and that my opponent's arguments were not as good as he thinks they were, because someone unbiased with background and knowledge of debates, debate. org, and debate. org's voting systems made the same one vote and other non-opinion votes. Therefore it is suspect to think that Dorb's arguments were even tied because an authority on the matter does not agree. I repeat: the point is that RoyLatham is the only authority who has spoken on the matter and that he voted the same as myself. Not that one person agreed with me. In response to my opponent's arguments about why I voted the way I did on this point: my opponent is wrong and grossly misrepresents my words. My opponent contradicts himself by arguing at one point that my reason for being turned off on his argument wasn't good enough, then arguing at another point that I never offered any reason for voting not a tie! My opponent cannot have it both ways. My reason for not voting tie was presented and my opponent chose to ignore it at one point and seize upon it at another point. For the record, I specifically said "neither point's arguments being convincing" and "I did not find myself convinced by either argument". I then added that my reason for voting to one side was because my opponent had made a particularly poor argument: as I put it in my words under the ARGUMENT heading "that the existence of multiple languages disproved objective reality". Under a more general heading, as an introduction to my general arguments, I concede I poorly characterized his argument as saying that "referring to the same thing by different names makes something untrue". HOWEVER, I clearly was not misinformed as I accurately characterized his argument when discussing that point specifically. Clearly I was not misinformed, only lazy when speaking vaguely in reference to the argument at one point and not another. I contend that regardless of what my opponent thinks, I was not convinced by either argument but was turned off by that specific argument. The vote was not "better argument" or "best formed argument" or "argument for the best side". I voted on whether or not I was convinced. And as I was only negatively convinced one way or another, I had no choice but to vote against the argument that managed to do the opposite of convince me: my opponent's. To say it in different words, I was not misinformed and I correctly voted which was most convincing--the argument which had not negatively convinced me. My opinion was the only way to gauge how I should have voted, and I voted in line with my opinion. Therefore I did not vote incorrectly on the matter of "more convincing argument". As an aside: stating that the voting system and my votes were a matter of opinion does not make my non-opinion votes non-opinion. FINAL CONCLUSION My opponent has inadvertently restricted himself from proving I voted wrongly on two points. He has again failed to prove objectively that I should have voted "tied" or in Dorb's favor for the previous argument. As mentioned earlier, wrong is a statement of fact but the vote was a matter of opinion. He cannot possibly prove a subjective opinion was wrong, and if you read my arguments carefully, you will see none of his points above prove the resolution.