The end result is superior to the process

Thanks, Pro. Pro clarifies the point of his first argument: that anything can be used for good or bad. For instance a knife can be used to cut a slice of pie, or it could be used to cut someone's throat. While that's true, that is not an argument in favor of the resolution. It's merely a notation. Just because it's true that something can be used for good or bad doesn't establish why the end result is superior to the process. It merely states that processes can be used for different goals. Nevertheless I agree with Pro's assertion that we can agree on semi-universal ethical standards of "good," however, my point was that these standards are not universal. For instance I think gay marriage is a good idea while Pro might think it's a bad idea. Just because we both agree that stealing is immoral doesn't mean we agree on a universal good and bad -- that was my only point. However throught this round Pro tries to make it appear as if I contradicted myself in pointing this out. That's ridiculous. Once again, we may have similar standards of right and wrong but that doesn't mean everyone agrees on what is right and wrong. Moving on, Pro writes "Con again critiques the argument tag, but really doesn't adequately address the argument behind it. The process - the way you achieve your goal - is not as important as the goal itself." Once again we can see that my opponent's literally just repeating the resolution and presenting it as an argument in favor of the resolution. He simply re-stated the topic in a different way. Pro continues, "We've already established that we should only look at examples of end goals and processes that are used in good ways - this argument was not disputed, and thus still stands in this debate." I'm not really sure what Pro is talking about here, but nevertheless I've argued from this perspective in the last round already. For example training to win an Olympic medal is an example of a good goal with good processes. In that case, I've already made the argument of why the process is more important (see: last round). Pro writes, "The argument still stands: driving to my grandma's house (the process) is still inferior to the end goal (my grandma)." This is a loaded example. Obviously seeing his grandma is the highlight of his day and more pleasant than the journey. Likewise losing 10lbs is more meaningful than just the exercising and dieting to get there. However like my Olympic example, it's easy to find other comparisons where the process is equally or more valuable. For instance, getting a diploma is the end result of attending college. However simply receiving your diploma is not as valuable as what you learned along the way to earn that diploma. If I handed Person X a degree in computer science on his first day of class and asked him to fix my computer, he would be ineffective. However someone whose endured some of the learning process but hasn't achieved their diploma (goal) yet might have the know-how and experience necessary to successfully fix the computer. Even if someone didn't achieve their goal of graduating with the degree, they would still have learned something valuable along the way. Therefore, the process was superior to the end result in this and other examples. This translates to the resolution being equated/negated. In other words I have fulfilled my burden of proving the process can at least be equally important to the end result, whereas Pro has not proven that the end result is necessarily more important than the process. This successfully negates Pro's assertion that the process doesn't have intrinsic worth. If that were true, people wouldn't feel proud about coming in second place (for example) but that's not the case. At bes you can say it's subjective on a case-by-case basis. I'm out of characters for now -- back to you, Pro.