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

He essentially presented two arguments, which he has labelled "infinite regress" and "interpretation of objective. " Furthermore, his so-called "conclusion" asserts a seperate argument that I will deal with briefly to begin with. .. Justifying RFD CriteriaWhat I have described is a system for ensuring every part of the vote is derived from the debate, and nothing is missed from the debate. My opponent has not contested this. One of the things he does contest, however, is whether the system itself can be objectively derived. Although he doesn't go into this in any depth, he does state: as every statement he has made as to what to judge in a debate… each require individual justification In other words, he contests that I have not shown the causal link between using my system and actually meeting the criteria of being objective. Note that my system is not necessarily the only way to give an objective vote, meaning that what I need to do to show that the criteria are justified is to show that they actually lead to objective votes. Again, here are my two criteria: derived from the debate nothing is missed from the debate I gave a number of examples of why this translates into objectivity in round two, which my opponent ignored, but I'll justify it formally. The definition of objective indicates that an objective vote is one not influenced by personal feelings/interpretations/prejudice, and therefore, no element of the vote may be derived from the voter. As it so happens, looking back over my two criteria, no element of the system I proposed in derived from the voter, as it considers the debate, the whole debate, and most importantly, nothing but the debate. It follows that my system evaluates the debate, and is thus justified if it in fact works. Which brings me on to my opponent's more important contentions. .. Infinite RegressAllow me to take this first from a practical perspective and then from a more philosophical one. Con proposes the following simple debate: 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. Let us now apply my system to this debate. There's one issue, on rights. Niether side has been able to prove the point sufficiently over the claims of the other debater - as my opponent has rightly pointed out, we have reached an impasse. Since pro had the burden of proof in this debate, pro did not fulfil their onus, and con should be declared the winner. Of course, if there were supporting arguments or more issues, the debate would have been more complicated. The basic point is that the fact that there is an impasse is entirely objective - each side only made a series of assertions that, as my opponent has rightly pointed out, are no better than the others. That pro had the BOP can also be objectively derived, and my opponent doesn't contest this. Therefore, it follows that even in these kinds of extreme, rare scenarios, one does not need to appeal to subjective criteria to judge a debate. Now let's take a look at this from a more philosophical perspective. Infinite regress applies only when one doesn't accept a common objective truth. A simple example would be if some person believed God made everything happen, they might have a discussion with somebody else like this: Person A: Why is it raining today? Person B: God did it. Person A: Why? Person B: Tada! Infinite regress! If, on the other hand, person A also believed God made everything happen, it might look more like this: Person A: Why is it raining today? Person B: God did it. Person A: I agree. Person B: Tada! No infinite regress! Debating is an example of the latter because it assumes that the debate itself is the objective truth from which all votes are derived. Since there is such a commonly shared standard, there is no problem of infinite regress. Interpretation of objectiveMy opponent is right in reasoning that depth of argument does not show objectivity. It's usually useful to help show the losing team why they lost, but it has nothing to do with the objectivity of the vote. Here's my big question: so what? Sure, my system can yield both concise and longer RFDs, but the point is it's objective. The right answer is that while a vote may appear more objective than another, a vote can either be based on personal opinion or not based on personal opinion - the middle is excluded. The very definition of objectivity excludes the idea of any sort of "scale", and my model has nothing to do with this. So how do I interpret objective? Exactly as I defined it. I should hope my opponent will start doing that too. ConclusionMy opponent has demonstrated many times an apparent disregard for my model. He claims that my system diagnoses whether I, personally, agree with any of the arguments in the debate, when in fact it is this very kind of subjectivism my model eradicates. He claims that my system accepts and disregards points, when in fact one of the two key principles is that nothing is disregarded. My opponent is wrong about voting, and he's wrong in this debate. My opponent has failed to engage with all of my material, and thus I declare that the motion stands.