Arguments Against "Best" or "Worst" in a Resolution

Ex:

Oromagi is the best debater

DebateArt is the best debate website

BearMan is the worst JoJo fan

1. Best or Worst is subjective (aka RM argument)

There are infinite subjects for best and worst. 

2. Burden of Proof (aka Bear argument)

PRO has to prove that (subject) is better than every single (subject relation) in every single criteria.

3. Cheap Kritik (aka Croc argument)

(subject) may be the best at (subject best at) but is it the best at every single thing? Is it the best at endorsing suicide?

Typically, I go for a combo of 1 & 2

2 and 3 are the same argument, I'm happy to have credit for 1 but that's an ancient idea invented by parents who refused to pick a favourite child, I'm merely the messenger.

@Rational

2 is defining what makes best or worst and seeing if the subject is truly best or worst

3 is ignoring all criteria and stating it is not the best at everything

You said 'every single criteria'. That's exactly what Croc's says.

s h u t

I don't like best and worse debates.  As you say its all pretty relative and amounts to people talking about their own taste, really,  rather than picking apart a subject on some defined merit.  I also don't like debates about we Darters and our biographies, etc altho I am sort of doing one at the moment

I'd like to see more history topics, me.

@Rational

No, it's all about the scope of the criteria. 

2 defines what makes a thing best or worst. If it's about debating, it defines what makes a good or bad debater.

3 just says it can't possibly be best at everything so it is not the best.

I gotchu bro. https://www.debateart.com/debates/2479-resolved-since-the-annexation-of-tibet-by-the-peoples-republic-of-china-the-tibet-autonomous-region-has-improved

Whether or not the resolution is subjective in this case depends on how it is operationalised. The instigator has a responsibility in any debate to define terms, and here they need to define "best/worst." Typically this means a criterion to establish how the instigator knows that X is the best/worst will be stated at the very start of the debate.

Eg

Oromagi is the best debater

best = better than all other debaters on the site as measured by elo rating. 

in this case neg might argue against the definition, but in any case where he doesn't, you have a perfectly fine, non-subjective debate.   

3, is a semantic kritik for people who don't define it.

2, is analyzing how it is the best for every single criteria the instigator provides

1, is also an argument for people who don't define it.

That is why I suggest people to use 2 or 1, depending on the case. 3 has never won.

1 is a perfectly debatable topic given a definition, which is essential in any debate

2 has a BoP, just like any debate

3 is the same as 1

They're all similar in context.

3, is saying best is subjective, meaning that it will be the best in some people's minds and not others. It can be used with definitions, but is definitely not the strongest case.

1, is literally saying it can't be the best because it isn't the best at everything.

Both are different.

You swapped around 3 and 1 in what you just said.

Rational

Oops