No you are still trying to use your own judgement in analyzing debates instead of coming in like a new born alien. It's clear even from your last statement where you try to determine the "strength" of arguments.
I come in like a newborn alien, that’s literally what I do. The person, the premise, the facts and the arguments are treated on their own on their own merit, and compared. I don’t treat anything refuted or not refuted unless it’s described.
What you’re confused (or most likely simpl butthurt) about, I suspect, is that you’re confusing the way judgement has to be used:
To decide whether Argument A refutes Argument B, a voter has to use their judgement. To decide whether pro made better arguments than Con, when there are multiple arguments, a voter has to use their judgement.
It is literally impossible to not use your judgement.
You just have to use your judgement based on what the individuals in the debate say and not make arguments for people, and what they say only. That’s no different from how any other person votes. My main difference is that I try and be transparent I’m explaing the details of why I selected A as refuting B.
Thats so people can object to any specific reasons I’ve given: or as what normally happens, which is being told that my twenty page long core is terrible with absolutely no specific examples or explanations of why.
