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

Thanks to Larz for the challenge. Pro defined objective in round 1. The first part of that definition is the most relevant in pertaining to the resolution and states: “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice”. The challenge to Pro in this debate will be to show how it is possible to determine which argument to accept as more convincing without the use of personal opinions, being that accepting any contended argument as stronger is to automatically show a different opinion then the person who contended that argument. The Problem of Infinite RegressThe regress argument is a problem in epistemology and, in general, a problem in any situation where a statement has to be justified. According to this argument, any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned, like a child who asks "why?" over and over again. (1)Infinite regress is a well known, well discussed concept in philosophy. Philosophers have wrestled with many different approaches to solve this problem as I will highlight below: Foundationalism - This solution can be summarized by saying that a proposition is true “just because”. In other words we must accept a proposition to be true with no justification. We then use that proposition as our basis to justify any other proposition. Coherentism – This is the belief that a chain of reasoning loops around into a circle, otherwise known as circular logic. For example proposition A is supported by proposition B, which is supported by proposition C, which is supported by proposition A. This is a highly challenged solution and such logic is often used on Debate.org as a rebuttal onto itself, so I don’t think it would be wise for Con to accept this type of reasoning. Infintism – this simply argues that the chain is infinite, however if it is infinite then no statement can ever be justified. Applying the Problem of Infinite Regress to Voting A quality debate argument is one that lists contentions to support or negate a resolution, then uses arguments to support those contentions. In order to judge which debater won we must decide which contentions were stronger, which can only be done by deciding which arguments were stronger. But how do we do that? In order to judge which arguments were stronger we must at some point base that decision on a proposition that has not been justified. Allow me to use the following oversimplified example of a debate about the legality of abortion (one of the most common topics on this site): Pro – Abortion should be illegal because it is killing the baby which is wrong because the baby has a right to life. Con – A fetus is not alive. If something is not alive it can not have a right to life. Pro – A fetus has the capacity to become a fully functioning human being therefore it does have a right to life. Con – The capacity of something to be alive is irrelevant. We do not recognize something which is not yet alive as having rights. In this example both Pro and Con seem to have come to an impasse. So how can any voter decide which argument is more convincing without referring to their own personal opinions? My opponent can claim that in order to do so you would have to look at the supporting arguments and see which one presented a stronger case to affirm their contentions. However just as you can not determine the strength of either of the above arguments without basing your decision on an opinion, you would not be able to evaluate the strength of a supporting argument without also basing it on an opinion. Any attempts to justify that opinion as objective requires choosing a set of initial propositions to base that opinion on and establishing them as true. In other words Pro must solve the problem of infinite regress, something philosophers have been trying to do for centuries. Interpretation of Objective Assuming Pro does not intend to solve this problem, he may claim that the standard of objectivity I have set thus far is unreasonable. After all, given the argument above the very word objective has no meaning as nothing could ever be truly objective (which is the point BTW). If Pro wishes to make such a claim he would have to define objectivity differently. Not differently from the definition above, but differently as in the type of term. Perhaps we should not be looking at objectivity in the sense of a simple is or is not proposition. The only way for him to make such an argument would be to claim that he was referring to objectivity as a relative term. So let’s explore that possibility. To establish objectivity in such terms we would first have to establish a way to measure it. Since this debate is about voting, I will use an example of a debate RFD (reason for decision) to demonstrate. Suppose the reader reads a debate and votes. He justifies his vote with proposition A: “I agree with Con”. If the reader does not have any justification for this proposition then the vote is considered highly subjective. He agrees with Con “just because”. Now let’s assume he justifies proposition A with proposition B: “Cons Argument XYZ outweighed Pros argument ABC”. Now this vote seems less subjective because it accounts for the arguments in the debate. If the reader now supports proposition B with proposition C (Cons argument XYZ outweighed Pros cases because…) then we might consider his RFD as supported enough to be accepted as relatively objective. So naturally, by this metric the further we justify these propositions the more objective the vote becomes. This type of reasoning however is fundamentally flawed. As human beings we are restricted to justifying propositions based on our own personal life experiences. So if I justify proposition A with B, and B with C, and C with D, etc… eventually I will get to a point where the initial justification is supported only because of knowledge or experience that I have gained in my own personal life. Therefore the base criteria from which all of my justifications are derived is by definition; subjective. Given this fact, our metric for measuring objectivity fails because it hinges on the notion that the deeper we root our justifications in subjectivity, the more objective they become. Such a notion is quite obviously absurd. Conclusion Having considered all of this, every argument in Pros case thus far fails as every statement he has made as to what to judge in a debate, what to consider important, how to determine which criteria to base the arguments on, etc… each require individual justification. Now he may claim that as long as it is these concepts utilized as opposed to whether he agrees with the individual arguments then he is being objective, however he can not make any decisions as to what to accept and what to disregard without applying his individual interpretations and justifications to those arguments. Therefore it is impossible for him or any voter to be objective when voting on a debate. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...