Hello everybody, I have read the debate and found it disappointing in the sense that i do not think that any of the debaters actually knew what this discussion was about. I found the debate stimulating for much the same reason. My personal opinion in this is that there are arguments to be made for both opinions and that, depending on the definition of 'authenticity' used, one might conclude to different positions. However, a definition was agreed on at the very start of the debate and although some debaters tried to change that later on I must consider that as sophistry. So, although I will personally always argue in favor of authenticity, I will not let my opinion get in the way of evaluating the way the positions ware argued.
I found the arguments Tab used much as I had anticipated beforehand, and not very creative, which supports his thought of non-authenticity in a strange sense. I found his examples very well found and properly argued. This surprised me because I do not think he knows exactly what he is talking about. Tab, if you want to I can point you to some literature. All you need to do is ask. The funniest thing is that Tab, of all participants, was the most authentic in the discussion because he has come to his opinions by his own research (into the research of others..

), which dominated the entire discussion.
My biggest surprise was fuse. He grew into the argument, and although this user definitely had no idea what the discussion was going to be about, the user grew into the discussion. Fuse picked out the important points quite nicely and even reached some new conclusions I think. Well done.
My biggest disappointment in this debate was the user debaitor. I thought he had a promising start, which much surprised me. However, he appeared to change his argument almost at every turn
and appeared unable to properly motivate his arguments. The horrible sophistries that followed lost both him and his partner my vote, which could have been in favor of their side if only fuse had argued it in (generally) the same way as was done now (which is impossible because every participant influences all others).
This means that Tab has my vote. To summarize: He dominated the discussion, forced one of his opponents to a new way of thinking about this and argued his position well.
Score:Tab:1
VS
Deb + fuse:
0