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

I'm glad my opponent has accepted this challenge, and look forward to a constructive debate.To be objective about a debate, every part of the vote must be derived from the debate, and nothing is allowed to be missed from the debate. For example, a vote that is based on arguments that were not in the debate is based on personal prejudice and thus does not meet the criteria for being objective, nor is it based on the facts of the debate or unbiased. Similarly, a vote that misses arguments from the debate is not an objective vote. Otherwise, one is bringing in personal prejudice towards what arguments to run. The only exception to this latter rule would be if a debater shows why an argument should be ignored by judges, in which case judges would obviously need to show why that case stood in the debate to be objective.On each argument, the decision of who won that point and why does not require any input from voters. Individual arguments can be called drawn if niether debater gained significant ground on that point, so long as it would not result in a drawn debate. It might be based on whether the point was dropped by one of the debaters. It might have been a conceeded point. 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). It might be that one debater was able to present a more compelling narrative, for instance because only one debater bothered to explain how the argument works in practice, or because the debater was able to show why their narrative was more realistic, and they won that point. It might be that an argument failed on any one of thousands of other objective criteria, such as that it was brought out too late (which could be objectively judged by the debater's opponent's ability to respond) or that it was missing causal links (which can be objectively determined with logic). In some circumstances, it might also be appropriate for an opponent's argument to cancel out an argument if the opponent manages to prove that it is a more important argument.The relative weighting of each argument can be objectively derived from the debate from what the debaters agree the most important points to be, or failing that, from the amount of time that was spent on those points during the debate. The decision as what qualifies as an objective reason for awarding an argument to one debater over the opponent's rebuttal can be derived from the definition of objective.The overall decision of who won the debate (with the assumption that debaters ought to vote for the winner) can be determined by checking the burdens of proof of the debaters. The debater with the burden of proof can be objectively determined by the resolution, as the person bringing the claim. The key exception to this is if debaters agree to a different, valid burden of proof. The validity of any given burden of proof can be objectively determined by whether or not it might lead to an impossible-to-judge outcome. If the side with the burden of proof had no arguments left standing at the end of the debate, then they have failed to prove the resolution. If the side with the burden of proof had arguments that were left standing, then they have been able to prove the resolution in some way.The reason why this works for any given debates is that the only inputs the process requires is the arguments on two sides of a proposition, which just so happens to be the very definition of debate that con agreed to.What my opponent needs to provide, in this debate, is some instance where this system could not be used to objectively determine a winner. I look forward to his case.