A.T.

SKEPTICISM
1.If terms do not have meaning then it is impossible for the negative to fulfill their burden of negating because we need to know the terms of the resolution before either side can win. 2) The resolution pre-supposes morality exists by asking a question predicated on the existence of morality. The resolution is asking what morality would allow not whether it exists. 3) When morality is discussed in topic literature it is assumed that morality is a guide to action that determines whether or not an action is right or wrong. Moreover, the way it is discussed in topic literature has led to this assigned meaning that morality is a guide to action, not that it doesnt exist.

4) By saying that morality doesnt exist, it sets this notion that there are no limits on what people can do. Morality provides codes and limitations on what we can do. For example, in the debate community we have certain communal norms that prevent us from talking for 20 minutes, or filling out the ballots for ourselves, and these are guided by morality. Without morality nothing would prevent us from breaking all communal norms. 5) Without morality there is no obligation for the judge to negate. The judge can say I think the negative is right, but I want to vote aff anyways, since morality guides right and wrong action, and without morality people can do whatever they please. If anything, thinking that my opponent won and voting for me would reaffirm this notion that morality doesnt exist. 6. Skepticism is an un-provable claim because their argument is that there is no grounding for morality. But its logically impossible to prove an existential negative because the range of possible groundings for morality is infinite. Skeptics can only eliminate particular groundings for morality, not morality in its entirety. The neg can never meet their burden to prove there is no grounding for morality. 7. Skepticism is not debate-functional. The claim that winning skepticism means that you are bound as a judge to affirm is itself an ethical claim, because it says that blatant intervention is not fair, or not ethical. By dejustifying all notions of ethics, my opponent cant claim that you are bound to vote for him, because duties or obligations dont exist under a skeptical framework. Thus, the entirety of the NC is irrelevant because it is not debate functional, and you have to vote for me because since I dont embrace skepticism, I am the only one that is not contradicting myself when I tell you to affirm. 8. Skepticism promotes nihilism. His conception of justice allows things like systematic exterminations to labeled as morally permissible. Any moral theory that allows for the mass murder should be rejected from the round because we are humans before we are debaters; in round arguments affect the way people think about moral issues in the real world while fiat is illusory. Even if s/he argues that his/her argument is merely descriptive the word moral still has a normative connotation and allowing everything to be labeled morally permissible serves to legitimize morally

egregious actions. 9. The fact that I cant get away with killing my opponent right now is an empirical proof that ethics exist. We intuitively think that arbitrarily murdering innocents is wrong. Not only would I be frowned upon by the world for committing murder, I would also be imprisoned. Thus, morality has some weight in our lives because there are particular actions we naturally find repulsive. 10. Even if cant say that morality is 100% true, there are still decisive reasons for us to construct moral standards. We can find a sufficient grounding for morality by using logic, and we can apply these standards to everyday life. Living in a world without morality, where all actions are permissible, would not be desirable. We can still find concepts which arent naturally occurring to be useful. For example, speaker points are human constructions, but we give a great amount of weight to them because they drastically affect the results of tournaments. Thus, even if morality isnt completely universal or absolutely true, we can still use it. 11. My opponent performatively contradicts his assertions by adhering to rules. The fact that they observe speech times, observe rules of decorum, and havent committed any crimes belies that they accept the reality of morals/ethics/rules. 12. Just because something doesnt occur naturally doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Saying that morality doesnt exist because it is not naturally occurring is akin to saying the Eiffel Tower doesnt exist because it wasnt made by the clouds. 13. Morality is at least as well grounded as science. There is no absolute grounding for science at all. We only know things in science because we have witnessed experiments and used our senses to come to logical conclusions about how the world works. However, just as our knowledge of morality is not complete, neither is our sense of sensory perception. Thus, rejecting morality would also reject all seemingly universal scientific laws because of the problem of induction. The impact is that the negs argument doesnt operate in the realworld because we have to accept basic assumptions like gravity exists to live.