The Best (Insert Object Here) Can not be determined.

In response to the fact that people have different standards of judging, Pro presents us with an example: Suppose one argued that Jamaica was the best country, but because someone pointed out flaws with Jamaica, they argued against this declaration (that Jamaica was the best). Well, simply because Jamaica (or any nation) has flaws does not mean that it can't be the "best." Once again, if standards are pre-determined and the judges or majority of judges agree on standards, then one can still be the best even if they are not perfect. So, Pro's statement "unless there is a magical perfect world country, then the best country can not be clear, or determined" is false. Perfect is near impossible and yet there can still be the 'best' of something. The 'best' would presumably be that with least flaws. Pro brings up another argument -- that standards can measure certain things (i.e. most record sales) but could not measure other things like influence or taste. However, anything can be debated. Even if one valued or described "influence" in numerable ways, there could still be one contender that outperformed in every positive way using the various interpretations. Again, there is no proof that (a) someone will always reject a clear winner; (b) even if there was always someone dissenting from the majority opinion, it does not mean that there was still not an objective best. For instance, if you believe in an objective moral or reality system, it's true that some people reject the notion of your objective opinion. However, just because they do not agree with you does not mean that you are wrong. I'm hoping this analogy is making sense :) Pro continues by clarifying his argument - "My argument here is that nothing can be the best with everything, just common sense. Not anytime soon will we find anything of flawless proportions." So far in this round, I have clarified that there has been no proof that something cannot be the best, and that flaws do not mean something cannot be the best. Here's another example. Suppose we were comparing the Red Sox to the Yankees, and in order to determine the best team of the last 5 decades we seek to measure things like win percentage, championships, star players and revenue. Now, I can prove that the Yankees bests the RS in all of those areas, objectively. However you might still think that the RS are the better team (despite their many flaws). Just because you disagree that the Yankees are the best does not mean that the Yankees are not the best. Again, Pro re-caps his case -- "But, there is no way to compare which state is better in beauty. Doing so would only be opinion, there is no way to prove a fact in that... My point in this debate was that a best cannot be determined, because it is a matter of opinion. Everyone standards are morals are different..." Once again, I feel like I have adequately explained how just because opinions may differ does not prove that there is no "best." Here's another example - suppose we're judging the fastest runner, or the tallest man. We can have people race, and there can be an objective winner (fastest runner). If we measured every man (theoretically) and one was clearly the "best" (tallest) then we've found the best of something. If you're looking for the most fuel efficient car, it's true that different cars have their pros and cons in various contributions to the environment. However, if you measure fuel emissions, then at the end of the day there can be a more fuel efficient (utilizing fuel to the maximum level) car which means they are the best. Pro must argue against this standard in reality. And finally, Pro notes, "This is basically saying no matter were you have got the information about something, do not believe it unless you have experienced it, and completely know it is true." Well, this epistemic declaration seemingly comes completely out of nowhere pretty much lol... However, I disagree with this anyway. First of all, how can one be sure they are actually experiencing something? Under a fever once, my younger brother hallucinated ("experienced") being on the playground when he was really lying in bed. I experienced something similar under the influence of mushrooms (haha). Point being - experience is relative, so doesn't this contradict Pro's argument? And what does this have to do with being the "best" of things anyway? I might have a good experience in Italy but you might have a bad experience. Does that mean Italy is not the best country for authentic Italian food? Anyway, since I have just 5 minutes to submit this (I forgot we only have 48 hours to submit rounds - whoops) I'll end this here for now. I look forward to my opponent's final rebuttal and re-capping the arguments in the next round. Thanks again and good luck.