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

Throughout this debate I have maintained that Pros opening argument in round 2 was built on flawed reasoning. I demonstrated why in round 2 by applying the problem of infinite regress. In this last round he alleged multiple times that I have conceded his round 2 arguments, implying that I have no rebuttals. If Pros arguments were so irrefutable then why did he essentially drop his entire case by focusing on attacking mine? He keeps saying that I didn’t address his round 2 arguments but after reading his last round multiple times, I have found that with only one exception, Pro did not bother to support any of his claims that I ignored his case. Here is the 1 exception: “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.” Here is the consistency point Pro was referring to in round 2 explaining how to determine if an argument was superior: “It might have been that one debater was able to present a clearer case, which could be justified by internal consistancy or the use of words objectively considered "jargon" to confuse people (in the way that many dictionaries would identify words that are jargon).” Pro would see that my round 2 argument addresses this if he actually applied it. Dictionaries are not objective. They are written based on a subjective determination of how words are used in society. As Merriam-Webster’s article on how words are added to the dictionary stated: “To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. The editors scour the texts in search of new words… anything that might help in deciding if a word belongs in the dictionary” (1) So to sum this up, Pro tries to claim that his determination of whose argument is clearer can be objectively derived because it can be grounded on objective criteria (the dictionary). However, not only is the dictionary subjective itself but most importantly; the dictionary is not in the debate. This forces the reader to refer to something that was not in the debate to determine who won that argument, the exact opposite of what Pro claims his system does. This is a perfect demonstration of infinite regress at work and why it refutes Pros model. There is no way that the 24,000 characters I have in this debate will be sufficient enough to communicate everything I have said. The voters must have some basic knowledge of what we are discussing to evaluate it, but that knowledge can then only be based on personal interpretations and life experiences outside of the debate which is by definition, subjective. Who made more convincing arguments? Pros initial statement here by itself shows why he lost this debate. In the previous round he admitted that objectivity is not a relative term and could not be judged by the use of some sort of “scale”. Yet he explains part of his system with the following: “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.” If objectivity is not a relative term then there is nothing to measure, it either is or is not objective. And what is convincingness? Another thing that has to be measured. The very act of measuring convincingness requires judgment of what applies and what doesn’t. The need for judgment contradicts objectivity. Justifying RFD Criteria Pro begins here by restating that a voter does not face infinite regress because the arguments in the debate are to be accepted as necessarily true. My rebuttals showed why this doesn’t work. A debate is about conflicting propositions, so in those areas there is no necessary truth. Pro did not address my rebuttal but instead re asserts his already refuted argument. What Pro is basically saying here is that infinite regress stops because when a debater makes a claim, it is not the voter’s role to determine the truth of that claim. I absolutely agree that it shouldn’t be, and should be avoided as much as possible. But it is not possible when arguments conflict. And even if we disregard this fact then according to this model, argument spamming must always be accepted, nonsense claims like 2+2=5 must always be accepted, and whoever gets the last word will always win because the voters can not interject. All of this completely undermines the question the voters are asked, thus Pros model forces them to ignore it. That is not voting. Next, Pro refers to my same sex analogy as invalid because it is a one sided proposition. Pro once again seems to have missed the point of the analogy. If a conflicting proposition was given it would require the exact same process to evaluate. I already explained why that process leads to eventual subjectivity in the previous round. Pro does not challenge that process as being necessary, which was the point. Lastly, Pro then claims that I incorrectly asserted that depth of argumentation is his model for determining whose argument is superior. No I didn’t. I showed how depth of argumentation unavoidably plays a role in determining the strength of an argument and why it is unavoidable. Pro should have refuted this by demonstrating how his model avoids this, instead he just re-asserts that I am wrong because it does. Ok. Infinite Regress; Practical Perspective No valid argument here, just more unsubstantiated assertions. Infinite Regress; Philosophical Perspective Pro then tries to support his case by giving an example of a debater who lost because they ignored their opponents round 2 arguments. So I ask the voters, did I ignore his round 2? Either determining whether I ignored his round 2 is subjective (meaning that I automatically win this debate) or it is objective. For it to be objective according to Pro, the voters must determine this using the debate, the whole debate, and nothing but the debate. Since the debate includes arguments made by myself for why I did not ignore his case, and no actual arguments from Pro showing that I did, the only objective possibility is to conclude that I did address his case. Since I objectively addressed his case, Pro needed to defend his case against my rebuttals. Since Pro instead relied on the objectively false claim that I ignored his case, he failed to do so which by his own rules conceded his case to my rebuttals. Without that case he failed to fulfill his BoP, which objectively means he loses this debate. Interpretation of Objective Pro asserts that his only responsibility is to prove he can assign points based on objective criteria. Besides the fact that this is an extremely dishonest and abusive definition of voting, if his criteria are not the question the voters are asked then it is his own interpretation of how a winner should be decided, thus it is not objective. Conclusion I think the resolution has clearly been negated. So at this point I will just leave it to the voters to use their own personal interpretations of everything Pro and I have said to evaluate who won this debate. Personal Note While irrelevant to the debate, I would simply like to point out that I do not believe in someone voting simply for whomever they agree with and I hope this debate will not be used as an excuse for anyone to do so. I debate this topic passionately because I think that in order to consistently provide fair and honest votes one must understand how their own subjectivity works. Hopefully this debate has helped to give you a deeper insight. I’d like to thank everyone for reading and to my opponent Larz for an interesting debate. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...