Relying upon science alone is faulty, as it cannot prove anything.

Rebuttal:1) The ability of induction to prove things cannot rationally be doubted, since all knowledge ultimately stems from induction. The premises of a deductive argument have to be based, at bottom, on induction from observed instances. If induction isn't proof, then no conclusion can be proven, including the conclusion that induction isn't valid.I agree. However, science's use of induction cannot be used to prove something. Science relies upon the use of measurable data and coming to a conclusion based on those facts. However, one must know that when coming to this conclusion, there is no way to know whether or not the facts that one did not analyse agree with this conclusion. It is for this reason that science cannot definitively prove anything, as you cannot know whether or not facts you didn't analyse agree with your conclusion. As an example, it was Aristotle's scientific conclusion that the Earth was flat. He observed the Earth, saw how it didn't seem curved, saw how the sun seemed to revolve around the Earth, saw how the moon did the same, and came to the conclusion that the Earth was flat, using induction. However, when new evidence came out that contradicted this claim, such as the studies of Copernicus and Galileo, his theory was disproven. It only takes one solid counterexample to disprove anything that science finds.Also, this "valid form of reasoning" that Con discusses shows my point exactly. Induction and deduction is a form of logic, and logic can indeed prove things to be true or false. When Con says that induction is science, he is horribly mistaken. I'll cite my source again, it talks in more detail about the differences between logic and science (1).2) Science is based on measurement, but what is measurement? I quote Ayn Rand from one of her most important works, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: "Measurement is the identification of a relationship - a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit." You seem to have not quoted your source fully. I'll do it for you. "Measurement is the identification of a relationship—a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit. Entities (and their actions) are measured by their attributes (length, weight, velocity, etc.) and the standard of measurement is a concretely specified unit representing the appropriate attribute (2)." From this, I think I can tell why you left the second sentence out of your argument, as it talks of concretely specified units, and the examples it gives are length, weight, and velocity, all of which are concrete (2). However, this does not pertain to that of abstract ideas, like the ones I have presented, ones that cannot have a concrete measurement. Also, I might add that this source also speaks to a point we both brought up: emotions. To cite your own source, "For instance, the intensity of the emotion of joy in response to certain facts varies according to the importance of these facts in one’s hierarchy of values; it varies in such cases as buying a new suit, or getting a raise in pay, or marrying the person one loves (2)." This contradicts what you argued in your round 2 argument, "First of all, my opponent claims that science can't just ask a person if they are happy, they have to ask them how happy they are, why they are happy, etc. This is not true - saying "I am happy" is a measurement. Happiness refers to a delimited area on the spectrum of emotions ranging from sadness to joy. When you say you are happy, you're saying "my emotional state is within such and such a range," which is a measurement. My opponent's requirements that we know how happy someone is or why they are happy are entirely unnecessary for scientific study (Round 2, Con)." The sources Con depends upon contradict his own arguments.3) There is not a single "spectrum of emotions," as my opponent misunderstands my previous post. One emotion can be measured in multiple ways, and different emotions may require different standards of measurement. Still, the fact remains that any emotion is measurable.You haven't answered my question I posed. If you remember, I asked by what scientific authority can you place an emotion higher than another? You have offered no definite, concrete measurement by which I can say that the pleasure I receive while eating a cheeseburger makes one happier than, say, my friend eating a cheeseburger. If it is relative between people, it is not a concrete measurement, and thus, has no basis in science. It's as if I were to measure out a room in square feet, and you were to do the same. However, we use our own feet instead of 12 inches, thus using different measurements. Would you say that it is scientific to say that relative and subjective measurements can in fact be considered truth?4) The standard of measurement in morality, as I argued previously, is the actor's life. Every action a person takes can be evaluated by this standard, by comparing it to the other alternatives available to him.So then, by your reasoning, in the moment, I am unaware which option would be morally acceptable or improper. I'll explain.I see a purse, and I see a car. I am unaware of how much that car is valued at, how old it is, etc. I also do not know what is inside of the purse, whether or not the purse is valuable, and so on. In the moment, I have no idea which is the "better" choice, as pertaining to morality. However, I have made up my mind to steal one of them, and let's say I steal the purse. Now, there are alternatives that I still do not know about, and that is as it pertains to the future. Will I be caught by the police? The boyfriend of the person I stole from? Or perhaps I won't be caught at all? If I am not caught, then my life is bettered by my actions, thus making my theft morally acceptable, right? In other words, morality can only be judged after the fact, and your stating that there is a definitive way of knowing and measuring one's actions requires you to speculate about the future. This is something that is clearly unscientific, as there is no way to test the future.5) We can use Mill's methods to establish that societies that respect people's rights are better than dictatorships on nearly every criterion. Which criterions? What scientific authority states that people have "rights," such as freedom, liberty, etc.?Closing:I have proven 3 points in my arguments. They are, as follows:1) Relying upon science alone is faulty.2) Science cannot prove anything a) inside it's constrictions, and b) outside it's constrictions.I have shown these statements to be true because:1) There are things that science cannot test, and thus, science is not an authority over any of these areas.2a) Science's theories are tentative and provisional, meaning that they are never final (1).2b) These things that are cannot be tested by science are not able to be measured by a concrete, definite, and unchanging relationship between them. Inches have a concrete, definite, and unchanging relationship to a foot (12" = 1'), grams have a concrete, definite, and unchanging relationship to a kilogram (1000g = 1kg), but happiness does not have a concrete, definite, and unchanging relationship to joy (5 x happiness does not equal joy). For these reasons, vote Pro.Sources:(1) https://www.psychologytoday.com...(2) http://aynrandlexicon.com...