Consequentialism is a valid normative ethical system

Thank you for the debate, con. In this last round, con appears to have very plainly ignored the contentions I have made. The three issues (which I did deal with individually) all stand within the context of my argument, and are as follows. The first issue concerns the nature of intrinsic value, and where it is placed within the context of consequentialism. Consequentialism merely says that acts are held to the moral standard of there consequences. This means that acts have no intrinsic value, but that other things may. We judge the consequences of an action by their intrinsic value if they aren't acts themselves. If a consequence is an act and can therefore have further consequences, those consequences are relevant to the act due to the moral value they may have. If a consequence leads to a consequence to a consequence and so forth, I have already noted that all consequences that come as a result of any acts (consequences themselves or not) should be held as a part of the moral standard that the act is held to. An act could potentially not be the result of any human aspect, and would therefore not be the consequences of genetics or hormones. My opponent seems to be arguing against his own points, by mentioning the distinction between actions and consequences. Not all consequences are actions, and actions are the only things that consequentialism claims have no intrinsic value, and therefore an act can have value based on the intrinsic value of the consequences which are not acts, and the extended value of any further acts using the same method. Free will has nothing to do with it, and in fact may disprove the alternative of virtue ethics. The second issue, is the extended idea of intentions and their place within the value that an action has. If an action is a consequence, then the value that said action has amounts to its consequences. Perception and intentions don't change the fact that when they lead to bad things, they are bad. There could be a rock that falls out of the sky and causes bad things to happen, the act of the rock falling out of the sky is bad. If the rock falls out of the sky and causes good things to happen, the act of the rock falling out of the sky is good. The value of the rock itself cannot be figured out by either example. I fail to see how perception is relevant. The third issue, is the confusion between normative and applied ethics. I thought I made myself very clear in the last few rounds, but here I will clarify what this debate was about. http://www.britannica.com... This is a link that talks about normative and applied ethics. Normative ethics is where we figure out how good and bad things work. Applied ethics are where we figure out how to apply these systems to our lives. So saying that consequentialism to negative consequences is not only totally irrelevant, but also based on no valid evidence. The application of consequentialism would be to glorify people if glorifying them lead to good things. Why would a consequentialist glorify a person who accidentally did good if that glorification would lead to bad things? It would be bad according to consequentialism to glorify lucky psychopaths or condemning unfortunate loyalists if it created a system that gave moral authority to people regardless their future impact. You are not only going entirely off topic, but you are outright claiming that a system that looks to create positive impacts would completely ignore said impacts. Why would a person devoted to promoting the best impact seek to glorify or condemn without considering the cost of doing so? This debate is about the correctness of the normative field, so please do not derail the debate into being about how we should act upon assuming said correctness. All of con's contentions have either been irrelevant, false, or in favor of my resolution. As such I strongly urge the floor to side with pro. Thank you.