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

Although somehow, I doubt that will encourage the voters to be objective. Or maybe I am just wrong on that as well. Pro claims that I failed to engage with all of his material, implying that I made concessions. It would appear by this statement that Pro does not understand my argument. His entire round 2 case was built on a foundation that a voter can decide the winner of a debate by using criteria that does not take into account the voters opinion of the individual arguments. Rather then engage with Pro on every individual contention, I simply attacked the very foundation that all of his arguments were built on. I did so by showing that every single criteria a voter can use to decide the winner can only be based on the voters personal interpretation of how the winner should be decided. In other words, their opinion. I also showed via my infinite regress argument that applying debate arguments to the voters subjectively chosen criteria requires personal interpretation of the arguments themselves, which will eventually be based on an unsupported proposition. This negates everything Pro stated in the previous round. To defeat my argument Pro needed to show that my basic contentions were false, which he failed to do in this round. Justifying RFD Criteria Pro claims that his system is objective because the vote considers “the debate, the whole debate, and most importantly, nothing but the debate”. As my previous argument demonstrated, that is not possible. A voter can not evaluate the strength of any argument without first understanding that argument. Understanding that argument requires the voter to draw back on their personal understanding of what was said which can only be derived from that voters own personal life experiences. For example, suppose I instigate a debate proclaiming that same sex marriage should not be legal and I support that resolution in part by arguing that the government has no interest in legally recognizing personal relationships among its citizens. In order for any voter to evaluate the strength of that statement the voter must first understand what a government is and what its role in society is. The voter must also understand what personal relationships are, and whether it is reasonable for them to play a role in legality. To do that they must understand what laws are and why we have them, etc… If none of these points are argued any further then the voter is left to their own personal interpretation of every single one of these factors. The only way around this as Pro seems to have implied, is that if I do not support my argument deep enough then it should be not considered as meeting the burden of proof. First of all what is the burden of proof and who determines that it is solely on me? How does Pro answer this without referring to his own subjective interpretations of what it is? Many members here have different views of what constitutes the BoP, so Pros own criteria is itself subjective. More importantly however, in order to determine whether my already subjective burden has been satisfied, Pro must decide just how far in depth I have to support my propositions to be considered a supported argument. If I argue that the government has no interest in recognizing personal relationships, supported by arguing what a governments role in society is, supported by explaining what the criteria for determining the government’s role in society is, etc… After all that Pro can simply claim that I did not explain why my criteria should be accepted, therefore I did not meet my burden. On the other hand if he accepts my argument as worthy of evaluating, he can only do so by applying his own opinions of the criteria I provided. In other words, because I never explained why my criteria for determining government’s role in society must be accepted, he has to answer that himself which negates the resolution. If he does not answer them himself then he can not evaluate my arguments because nothing I said would be justified. Infinite Regress; Practical Perspective Here Pro argues that my example abortion debate which has come to an impasse can be decided by the BoP. I have already shown why this is itself subjective but more importantly, this demonstrates the issue with Pros concept. Disregarding my previous argument for a second, accomplishing true objectivity according to this concept requires never basing a vote on the strength of arguments in the debate, but rather on which debater fulfilled the criteria set by the voter. The voter is then failing to answer the very question he is supposed to be answering which is: Who made more convincing arguments? Pros system can only derive an objective vote by using criteria that has nothing to do with being convincing but rather determining whether the subjectively chosen “rules of debate” were followed by the debaters. This defeats the purpose of a debate. Infinite Regress; Philosophical Perspective Pro claims that infinite regress applies only when one doesn’t accept a common objective truth. First of all, the purpose of the problem is to demonstrate that it is humanly impossible to establish an objective truth. Second, two people agreeing on a proposition does not make the proposition justified. I do however accept that if two debaters agree on a proposition then the voter must accept that as an objective truth for the sake of voting. However, voters are not voting on the agreements, they are voting on the disagreements. Therefore by Pros own claim the problem in then reinstated and thus, still needs to be solved. Interpretation of Objective Pro suggests that I choose a definition of objective to base my arguements on, once again demonstrating a lack of understanding of the argument I made. The purpose of my argument was to show that objective does not work as a relative term, forcing us to revert back to solving the problem of infinite regress to establish an objective vote. Pro has already agreed with this concept by stating that “the very definition of objectivity excludes the idea of any sort of scale”. Now that we have agreed, let’s go back to the question the voter is asked: “Who made more convincing arguments? ” According to the questions use of the word “more” it can not be answered without the use of a relative scale to determine the winner. Therefore determining the winner requires the use of something which by Pros own admission, contradicts the definition of objective. To get around this Pro must show why it is justified for a voter to vote without answering the questions they were asked, or he has to show that an objective vote is actually an objective determination of which debater is right and which is wrong. I look forward to his insights on that. Conclusion Pros arguments simply aren’t holding any water. He appeals to his own opinions of how a debate should be decided to prove that a debate can be decided objectively. His interpretation of an objective vote seems to be a vote that uses some sort of point system to determine who followed his subjective rules as opposed to a vote which actually answers the question being asked. And most importantly, he has failed to explain how a person can vote without using their own personal interpretations of what was said just to understand, let alone evaluate the strength of the arguments made.