Watson Is going to be winning me the round, 100% preclusion against your

framework. We cannot be free agents if we don’t orient our passions correctly since
we aren’t then following our values but our motivations. (AT parfit) That takes out
your Parfit card it has nothing to do with unified identity. When we only follow our
motivations and not our values its because our desires control us making us no
longer moral agents, like a drug addict who wants to quit but cant.

AT
Takes out moral motivation- its irrelevant if it takes out moral motivation I am not
going for it

That’s always going to be outweighing all other argument because morality is never
possible without freedom and controls the internal link to your framework we need
to be free to pursue it.

AT intutions false Singer

1. I take out the emotions argument, since my fw proves emotions have truth
value
2. Turn evoloution means its more likely to be true, we evolved eyesight which
is objective because it was useful.
3. Turn Util falls to this as well since its original assumption is that we
intuitively like our happiness so that extends to everyone else

AT util collapses
Group all your arguments about collapsing or looking towards the NC framework to
interpret it
1. Yea of course we need to evaluate which passion comes first but that is
contextualized by the fw and contention level offense, this is at best a
weighing argument on contention level offense.
2. False example- util says we should maximize pleasure but that doesn’t
evaluate how we order our passions. Even if util is how we evaluate which
passions are good that still means we are using virtue ethics to follow but util
just tells us which virtues to follow.

Go to lewis extend morality shouldn’t be motivational which takes out your Gay
card terminal defense on motivational morality.
 Extend lewis 2 that the only way to get past the is ought problem is from emotins
since its our only moral language we have right now. That’s terminal defense on
your framework since it proves your starting point for morality is flawed.

AT we can move past is-ought

1. no because it’s a definitional impossibility, we cant derive something form
something completely unrelating, my whole point is that we can’t logically
deduce frameworks that don’t start from sentiments so your util example
makes no sense

AT why do our sentiments ought obe the way we are

1. this is a non-sensical question, if they are moral knowledge that is like why is
2+2=4. It is just a fact about morality
2. I win on comparison we have no moral knowledge for your interp, under
mine there is a least a good chance that our only way to derive normative
truths is through emotions.

AT physical realism
1. this arg is self-refuting since no where in the physical world does it say only
listen to the physical world
2. its circular your arg is to prefer verifiable evidence because its verifiable, that
never proves it philosophically good