Cast wrong vote on debate "Truth is relative"

I accept Yvette's definitions. Defining "misinformed" is unimportant. If I demonstrate that Yvette cast the "wrong" vote, then it will be assumed that she was "misinformed" by whatledge's false supporting information. There are three points that I am contesting here: "Who had better spelling and grammar," "Who made more convincing arguments," and "Who used the most reliable sources." Who had better spelling and grammar? Yvette voted that this category was a tie in the debate. A careful analysis of the debate as a whole, however, demonstrates that whatledge made more spelling and grammatical errors than Dorb. Because this is the case, I claim that Yvette should have voted that this was won by Pro, and not that it was a tie. To prove this is the case, I will show all the cases in which whatledge made errors of this kind. For the most part, I have limited myself to the cases where whatledge was clearly operating under the rubric of English grammar – paragraphs and sentences. I've also avoided the question of whether fragments are grammatically correct or not by not listing them. If Yvette prefers to counter with fragments, however, I will gladly indulge her desires. If Yvette is to defend her case, she will have to demonstrate that Dorb made as many errors as whatledge. First case: "As my opponent is instigator claiming that the truth is relative, the burden of proof lies with him to prove that Gravity" This statement has no period, and furthermore, is incomplete. As such, it is a grammatical error. Second case: "The above quote explains it rather well." In context, this statement's pronoun, "it," refers to no antecedent. As such, it can be considered grammatically inaccurate. Third case: "therefore, a square is not a circle." The "t" in "therefore" should be capitalized. Fourth case: "The future is nonexistent, what has not yet happened does not qualify as truth or fact." A comma splice, which is considered unacceptable by the standards of English grammar. Fifth and Sixth case: "Am I a alive?" In this case, the problem is "a alive." Firstly, it should be "an alive." Secondly, it is either a wrong construction or incomplete; either way, it is wrong. I count this, then, as two cases. Because Dorb made less grammatical errors than whatledge, Yvette should have voted Pro in this category. As such, Yvette cast the wrong vote. Who used the most reliable sources? Besides a reference to dictionary.com to define "truth," the only sources that whatledge used were from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable because it is open to anonymous editing. Dorb's first listed sources are "Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 1," and "Spivak's Calculus." Every following source was, like whatledge, from Wikipedia. I claim, then, that because Dorb used two sources that were far more reliable than whatledge's sources, Dorb should have won this category. The "Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 1" is the choice textbook on physics in some of the top universities in the world. At MIT, both the introductory physics classes and the classes on "Quantum Physics" use this textbook. At the University of Chicago, the same thing. As for "Spivak's Calculus," it is a major mathematical textbook in some of the most difficult math classes at top universities. I can post links to the syllabi from the U Chicago physics and math courses if the Wikipedia pages below are not enough to demonstrate the reliability of these two texts. Because institutions of higher education, and particularly those mentioned – MIT, Harvard, U Chicago, Princeton – prefer these textbooks, I argue that they are the "most reliable" sources. And if not the "most reliable," they are by far more reliable than Wikipedia. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(book) Who made more convincing arguments? I claim that the arguments whatledge made were not "more convincing" than the arguments made by Dorb. To win this particular category, I do not need to prove that Dorb's arguments were "more convincing," although I do believe that to be the case. Dorb's argument rested on three fundamental points, each of which he argued convincingly. whatledge, on the other hand, failed to address either of these points, and instead, chose to ignorantly (as I will show) say the same thing over and over again, without providing support or weighing the evidence of the arguments made by Dorb. I will begin with Round 3, as I believe that is the place where Dorb presents his three fundamental points, each of which were argued convincingly, and each of which were misrepresented by whatledge. And worse, whatledge never addresses these powerful arguments that Dorb made. First argument: Dorb made a twofold argument vis-ï¿½-vis space, time, gravity, and the physical world: (1) that "for every statement x, there is a space s such that in space s x is not true"; and (2) that "for every statement x, there is a time t such that in time t x is not true." This argument was supported by three Wikipedia articles, the one on Gravitation, the one on General Relativity, and the one on Quantum Mechanics, as well as the Feynman Lectures on Physics. Instead of addressing this argument, whatledge continued to repeat claims (without support) that were irrelevant precisely because they were such a statement x, and therefore, were relative to both space and time. whatledge claimed that "If I drop an apple from a roof, it WILL fall down. This isn't relative. It is not a matter of opinion that gravity pulled the apple down to the ground." This is clearly not true, given the statements above. Furthermore, I insisted that because of General Relativity, the apple would, from certain reference frames, not fall down. whatledge refused to believe Einstein's theory of General Relativity, and in the final argument, provided a video of himself dropping an apple. whatledge refused to realize that I had conceded that an apple could fall down, and that his video therefore did not prove that an apple would ALWAYS fall down. This video was the last word on the debate, but it was not convincing in the least. I provided scientific and theoretical proof that an apple falling down when dropped was a relative truth. whatledge provided a video that (1) could have edited, and (2) was not scientific. Which type of evidence is "more convincing?" I argue that theoretical and scientific evidence is more convincing than empty claims and a video that depicts someone dropping apples to the ground. I leave this, however, to the readers of this debate to decide. Second argument: Dorb argued that mathematical truths were "objective" and "relative." In support of this claim, Dorb used Spivak's infamous (because of how difficult it is) textbook on Calculus to demonstrate that mathematical truths are indeed relative. Because whatledge agreed that they were objective, Dorb did not have to prove this. Dorb provided multiple arguments that mathematical truths were relative. First, Dorb argued that the operators of addition and multiplication can change depending on the field chosen by the mathematician. This information is in the appendix of Spivak's Calculus, in the section on "Fields." (Again, Dorb used a more reliable source for his information). By "field," Dorb was referring to a specific mathematical concept from the book. In the final round, Dorb also provided a quote from a famous mathematician, Charles Proteus Steinmetz: "All mathematical truths are relative," which, given Steinmetz's position as an authority on the matter, should have been enough evidence for both whatledge and Yvette to realize that mathematical truths, although objective, are indeed relative. As such, Dorb's second argument was more convincing. I have run out of room, so I will continue my argum