Cast wrong vote on debate "Truth is relative"

Yvette states that I cannot prove that her "OPINIONS were WRONG. " This is not true. Just because someone believes something, or has an opinion about something, does not mean that that is the case. I can believe, and have the opinion, that this is not written in the English language, but that would be an opinion that is wrong. Yvette can have the opinion that she is correct, and she can be wrong. Opinions can be proven wrong. As I stated in R1 of this debate, to win I will only have to prove that Yvette voted wrongly in one of the categories in question. That will be enough to say she "voted wrongly," as the vote is calculated as a total sum and not individually. Therefore, in R1 I focus on the two categories that offer most "objective and factual proof," namely, that of "spelling and grammar" and of the more "reliable sources. " Yvette did not respond to my arguments that my sources were more reliable. Silence, I contend, is consent. Therefore, Yvette has already begun to imply that she voted wrongly. Yvette's "second" is also wrong. This is a different debate, and therefore, I do not have to show that Dorb was correct in the other debate – "Truth is relative" – to prove my point in this debate. I only have to prove that Yvette voted wrongly in some category. Yvette claims that I am "clearly biased," and that therefore my "subjective claims that this or that argument was ‘better' are highly suspect. " She then uses RoyLatham as an authority that can be trusted. As I stated, the argument I am making here is not subjective. I am providing objective and factual proof, and I am using authoritative sources for each point. The authoritative sources I used in the previous debate are far more of an authority than RoyLatham – they include Einstein, Feynman, and Spivak. If you believe RoyLatham is a better authority than these three figures, please explain how that is the case. Furthermore, just because RoyLatham agreed with you does not mean you are correct. Throughout history, the minority has often been correct. In this case, I am the minority. Yvette misread the argument that Dorb presented in "Truth is relative. " Yvette states that Dorb argued that "referring to the same thing by different names makes something untrue," and that it was that argument that "tipped the scales for me to vote" against Dorb. The problem, however, is that Dorb never made such an argument. Dorb argued that language is "socially constructed, arbitrary, and relative. " There is a distinct difference between saying something that refers to the same thing by different names makes something untrue, which Dorb never stated, and that language is relative because it is socially constructed and arbitrary. Dorb never had to prove things untrue. Dorb's only purpose was proving things relative. By relative, Dorb means that all things must be understood in relation to other things, including language and words. This is the reason that all words can only be defined by other words – they exist only in relation to other words and to things in the world. Again, Dorb argued that language was relative, not that "referring to the same thing by different names makes something untrue. " Because Yvette voted against Dorb for an argument Dorb never made, Yvette voted wrongly in the category of "more convincing arguments. " It should have been a "tie. " Yvette also argues that a "tie" vote can be a "non-opinion" vote, and that her "tie" votes were such votes. Yvette claims that she made a "non-opinion" vote. Yvette has made a grave error by admitting that her vote was a "non-opinion" vote because she has just proven me correct. Why? Because a "tie" vote is distinctly not a "non-opinion" vote. As such, she voted "incorrectly. " Let me say that again: there is a distinct difference between a "tie" vote and a "non-opinion" vote. By admitting that her vote was not meant to be a "tie" vote, Yvette admits that she voted wrongly and incorrectly. She also admits that she was misinformed, because she admits that she was under the impression that a "non-opinion" vote was a "tie" vote. Why is a "tie" vote not a "non-opinion" vote? According to Yvette, a "tie" vote is a "non-opinion" vote because the "system allows no alternative. " Yvette, it seems, did not realize that the system does not require you to vote. In other words, a "tie" vote, on debate. org, is not a "non-opinion" vote because debate. org allows its users the alternative of not voting. Simply put, the alternative "neutral" position is not voting. If it were required that you vote on debate. org, then yes, a "tie" vote, because it is "the only possible neutral vote the site allows," would qualify as a "non-opinion" vote. But because the site distinctly allows its users not to vote, that effectively fulfills the function of a "non-opinion" vote. When Yvette consented to vote, she in effect gave up the ability to cast a "non-opinion" vote. You can say she casted an "opinion" vote. She was given three options: "Pro," "Tie," or "Con. " She chose "tie. " In doing so, Yvette stated that in the category in question, "spelling and grammar" and "reliable sources," Yvette believed that Pro and Con had tied. In her "INTRODUCTION," Yvette admits that each of her votes were "opinions. " Had Yvette wanted to have a "non-opinion" vote, she could have chosen NOT to vote. Thus, when Yvette cast her vote, she voted wrongly and incorrectly. According to her claim that she meant to cast a "non-opinion" vote, she should have not voted. Spelling/grammar: Yvette does not show that Dorb made more errors than whatledge because she cannot. Instead, she tries her best with a theoretical argument. Whatever the case, because I do not have to prove that Dorb's spelling and grammar were definitively better to win this debate (I can prove Yvette voted wrongly in other ways), I will leave judgments for this category up to the voters. References: Yvette states that she "did not make a vote either way. " Yvette states this is so because her vote "cannot be considered ‘wrong' for my non-opinion. " Yvette thus acknowledges that a "non-opinion" occurs when one does "not make a vote. " The problem, however, is that Yvette did vote. She voted "tie," as is demonstrated by the "Truth is relative" debate page on which Yvette's votes can be seen. Therefore, I again contend that Yvette voted wrongly and incorrectly, and was misinformed on the relation of "non-opinion" and "tie" when voting. Furthermore, Yvette has not answered my argument that the sources I provided – the Feynman Lectures on Physics and Spivak's Calculus – are more reliable than whatledge's use of Wikipedia. Silence is consent. Therefore, because Dorb's sources are objectively more reliable (proven in R2), Yvette voted wrongly in this category, too. Argument: Yvette states that "I felt this was more a matter of whatledge's debate skills being poor but neither point's arguments being convincing. " I contend that if neither side provided convincing arguments, that neither side could have had a "more convincing" argument because no convincing arguments were presented, period. Yvette has claimed that neither side provided convincing arguments. Therefore, this category should have been a "tie. " Therefore, Yvette voted wrongly. Conclusion: I have shown that Yvette clearly had "opinions," but that at the same time, that she believes she voted a "non-opinion. " This is contradictory for obvious reasons. I contend, finally, that Yvette was misinformed because she assumed a "tie" vote was a "non-opinion" vote, and that she also voted wrongly as a result of this misinformation. I also contend that she voted wrongly in the category of "more convincing arguments" because, as she notes, "neither side provided convincing arguments. " As such, neither side could have had a "more" convincing argument as neither side had a "convincing argument" in the first place.