Aviators is the Best Artist (Please be kind and thoughtful!)

I don't see how that surprise was at all relevant to the debate. This whole pony religion thing is kind of weird and certainly doesn't prove that Aviators is the best artist. SummaryRound 2Let's review. My opponent opened in round 2 by "proclaiming" that "facts and media recognizance and popularity and all that" were secondary to "what's inside the music of the so-called 'best artist'". That is fine, but my opponent basically dropped all of the fact based arguments. He has basically conceded that Aviators is not the best artist in terms of success, skill, talent, popularity, ect. I think I have proved that pretty well. Round 3In round 3, my opponent called "logic and reason" his "natural enemies" and again tried to claim that they were of secondary importance. I still think that all of the objective measurements for "best artist" matter, though my opponent does not. I think the voter should vote based on these categories, not strictly based on what is "inside the music". In round 3, my opponent also conceded the debate. "Because I admit that I may be a little bit wrong about him CURRENTLY being the best, BUT I won't be afraid to claim that he has more than enough of the right POTENTIAL to become so. "That is moving the goalposts. He has surrendered the point that Aviators is not the best artist and stated explicitly that he will "now change (his) claim that Aviators WILL BE in the future the best artist". That is not the resolution. My opponent should lose here. Also in round 3 I found some criteria that my opponent seems to hold as mattering to the best artist and showed that Aviators is not the best in these categories (experience, criminal record, message in music). Round 4In round 4, while insisting that he had not conceded, my opponent reaffirmed his concession. "My point is, sometimes because of my autism I tend to not think things above and beyond (pardon the irony) and did not think at all if I could prove that he IS the best artist, and did not realize it until later on. So I changed it up. .. "He blatantly admits to changing his objective, or moving the goalposts. There is not way to vote for Pro after he has conceded the debate more than once. And he had failed at this point to refute any of my objective evidence. Round 5 My opponent has tried to justify? or defend his moving of goalposts. "1. Well, buck. I seriously have no idea whatsoever why a debate shouldn't have more than one subject, or "goalpost", whatever. 2. When did I ever say that this was a regular debate with proof and evidence and all that. .. .. .. .no matter. "1. A debate can cover a wide variety of topics, but Pro and Con should always be trying to prove their side of the resolution. The resolution does not change even if what the participants are talking about does. One side cannot declare that the resolution is changed, that is the same thing as forfeiting the original resolution.2. You didn't say it was going to be, but you never said it wasn't normal either. If I had known you wished to avoid facts and logic, I would not have accepted the debate. However, since there was no agreement beforehand, pro cannot "proclaim" (as he is so fond of doing) that logic and reason and facts and numbers do not matter. My opponent again moves the goal. "I guess a more appropriate subject for this debate would be that Aviators is the most UNIQUE artist. "Sure, I guess it would have been more appropriate. That is not the resolution you set out to defend. And in round 5 Pro does not once try to prove Aviators is the best artist. At least he doesn't say so. ConclusionPro conceded and moved the goalposts in round 3 and never tried to move them back. Pro ignored and therefore conceded all of the objective measurements of best artist, such as most talented, successful, popular, ect. Pro made claims that were subjective. There is no way to prove that Aviators has the best message, because the message means different things to different people. The message may mean nothing to me or anyone else. My opponent has failed to prove that Aviators has any value that is not subjective or relative; he has failed to prove that Aviators is objectively the best in any way. I think that therefore he should lose the debate. If nothing else, he has moved the goalposts enough to justify losing the debate without even looking at my arguments. Thanks for the debate.