The end result is superior to the process

I'll be addressing all of the Con's arguments against my case, and then addressing the independent arguments that they brought up. In defense of my first argument, Con simply makes a critique that this is a statement and not an argument. I can clarify: the argument exists in the sense that it sets a practical limitation for the purposes of this debate round. Con claims that this isn't an argument, but that doesn't really refute the claim that I established: anything can be used for good or bad. Con goes on to say that the argument of what is "good" is relative. However, my two responses are simply this: 1. we can both presumably agree on a rational level of "good," and 2. Con actually uses several examples talking about contrasts of "good" and "bad" when referencing "stealing gas money," and "taking steroids. " We both agree that these actions are, for all practical purposes, unethical, things that we would not consider good. So Con's argument that "good" is relative is really contradicted by their own arguments. 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. Con then makes the claim that you can act "immorally" (while, note previously, Con implied that what is "good" is somewhat uncertain), but 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. If I were to steal gas to go to my grandma's house, that would be a bad or "immoral" action by both Pro and Con standards, and as a result, is not good, and thus doesn't really go to prove anything in this debate (since we're looking at only good examples). The argument still stands: driving to my grandma's house (the process) is still inferior to the end goal (my grandma). The example of the President is directly refuted by the tag of my argument: the process (in this case, elections) are only good to the extent that they achieve the end goal (a good President). The process–writing a person's name on a piece of paper–is part of the way to achieve the goal–a good President–but is not more valuable than the good President. There are other ways to achieve the same goal–many monarchies have good leaders without elections. The process really doesn't have intrinsic worth, while the end goal does. The process of building skills is only useful if those skills are used to further the good purpose of becoming an effective and capable leader. Otherwise, you can build up skills all you want, but if they aren't used for the end goal of making a good leader, those skills–that process–will essentially have little to no worth. Precisely: the end result IS the purpose, therefore it must have more value than the process. As previously pointed out, the process is not inherently good of itself. Con admits that the process exists for the purpose of furthering the end goal. The diet is a somewhat poor example, because (assuming a person were overweight) you generally have to lose body fat in order to begin building muscle strength. Thus, the original end goal would be achieved, along with another benefit–another end goal, essentially: a stronger, healthier person. The Olympic example again falls prey to the limitation we previously established: we both agree taking steroids would be "not good," so that doesn't apply. However, the end goal–winning a medal–would be better than the process–taking steroids–just like the end goal–a healthier person–would be better than the process–becoming a healthier person. All in all, my arguments still stand. Con has presented a few examples but hasn't presented any true arguments supporting her side. Even if the process is good, its the end goal that has value. I look forward to Con's response.