Cast wrong vote on debate "Truth is relative"

INTRODUCTION First, my opponent asserts that I: voted wrongly, was misinformed, and voted "against the reality of the situation". Because of this, my opponent cannot possibly win this challenge. To show I voted wrongly and incorrectly (misinformed), he requires objective and factual proof. However a simple look at the questions asked of voters shows that what he is attacking is pure opinion: "better", "more convincing", and "most reliable". He cannot prove my OPINIONS were WRONG. He can, and has attempted to, attempt to convince myself and voters that a vote in his favor would have been subjectively better. But this is not proof I am wrong. Furthermore, to vote "against the reality of the situation" means both "voted wrong" and "was misinformed". My opponent's only avenue to discredit my vote, then, is to prove I was misinformed. However, in case voters are not convinced I will defend each vote. Second, my opponent cannot win this debate without proving his earlier position that truth is relative, wrong. Either truth is relative and my opponent admits he can not prove any of his statements definitely, or truth is not relative and he was wrong in his previous debate (therefore my vote was in good taste) as he asserted there that no truths are true absolutely. Third: "I argue that Yvette's vote was misinformed, and that she voted against the reality of the situation." My opponent has no evidence for this statement, and as the only person who could know how informed I am, I assert that I read the entire argument and was as fully informed as realistically possible. I am also fully capable of being completely informed to my opponent's satisfaction and voting to his dissatisfaction due to either: lying, or objective opinion. Indeed, my opponent cannot prove his statement that I voted against the reality of anything as this would require a statement to be true. Fourth, I will use valid argument from authority. My opponent is clearly biased, therefore his subjective claims that this or that argument was "better" are highly suspect. I am also biased, so my subjective claims are suspect. However I assert that there is only one unbiased authority on the matter, and he has voted in precisely the same manner as myself. RoyLatham clearly is the more authoritative opinion between my opponent and myself. At a 92% win ratio and a 99% percentile rank, he is clearly knowledgeable about debate and the way the site works (see below, where I contend that "tie" votes are neutral). This does not make me informed, but it does call into question whether my vote was objectively "wrong" when an experienced debater agreed with me fully. [1] VOTING CHOICE Finally, I will give my reasons for my vote. I am of the opinion that absolute vs. relative truth cannot be proven and that there have been no conclusive arguments presented from advocates of either view. Neither Dorb nor whatledge convinced me, and I felt neither of their arguments settled the matter. However, Dorb's argument that referring to the same thing by different names makes something untrue struck me as especially bad, and tipped the scales for me to vote that one had made better arguments than the other. 1. Spelling and grammar: tie As someone who studies anthropology, I will be rejecting the notion that spelling and grammar can be "better". "Better" is a fully subjective term and anthropologists reject the idea that languages, dialects, grammar rules, etc, can be better than one another. I quote prominent linguist Donna Jo Napoli, who has argued that even grammatical rules are not true rules: "Some of us hold onto archaisms longer than others...but if you say ‘It's I' self-consciously because you've been taught that that's correct, what does ‘correct' mean in this situation? If that's what most people used to say but it is not what most people say today, you're saying it's correct either because you revere the past (which many of us do) or because you believe that there's a rule of language that's being obeyed by ‘It's I' and being broken by ‘It's me'...more than one issue is at play here [grammatically]." [2] She is joined by most linguistic anthropologists who reject the notion that Ebonics, for example, is "worse" than "Standard English". [3] This shows I was not misinformed in this category, as linguistic experts reject the notion of "better" use language. Furthermore, a "tie" vote is the default, the only possible neutral vote the site allows. It can be interpreted and meant to be a statement of no opinion one way or another. I, and probably many others, vote as tie when they either have no opinion, aren't sure, didn't check, or truly feel there was a tie. It is impossible to tell because the system allows no alternative, thus, it is impossible for my opponent to prove my vote was not simply a vote of non-opinion, which I assert it was. My opponent is arguing against my statement of non-opinion on the matter. Regardless of whose grammar and spelling is considered "better" by prescriptive linguists, I cannot be "wrong" when I state no opinion. This would be like stating that someone who has never made any statement about the existence of Santa Claus is wrong and misinformed about reality. The argument is invalid and would only be valid if I had voted one way or another. 2. References: tie My above statement on the neutrality of my votes continues to apply. For all I know, every article cited by my opponent can look credible but be considered a poor source by those in the field who are more knowledgeable on the subject. Or I may have simply not cared to check. I did not make a vote either way, and so cannot be considered "wrong" for my non-opinion. 3. Argument: whatledge "As such, Dorb's second argument was more convincing..." my opponent states. But I disagree. I assert that the question of "who made more convincing arguments" is subject to the voter's opinion on whether or not they found themselves moved by either argument. It is not a question of which debater was more skilled, which my opponent clearly was. Unfortunately I felt this was more a matter of whatledge's debate skills being poor but neither point's arguments being convincing. Because I did not find myself convinced by either argument, but found my opponent's argument that the existence of multiple languages disproved objective reality to be a very poor argument and one which weakened any chances of me being convinced, I voted in whatledge's favor. I repeat: the question was of which argument was more convincing. Neither convinced me but one of my opponent's points turned me off from his position. CONCLUSION My opponent is attempting to say that my non-opinion is incorrect, and that I was objectively wrong and misinformed. He can prove none of this, no matter how convincing of a case he makes for his arguments, grammar, and references being subjectively better. SOURCES 1. http://goo.gl... 2. http://goo.gl... 3. http://goo.gl...