This house believes ethical egoism is false

Many thanks to Stephen and readers, of course. Now, let's get started. To clarify my previous argument, I want to state as simply as possible what Ayer's Verification principle is: Verifiability exists in two kinds, and statements can only have meaning if they are analytically or empirically verifiable. If some statement is analytically verifiable, then it is logically coherent/deductively valid and is without implicit and without inherent contradiction. If some statement is either internally or implicitly contradictory, then it cannot be analytically verifiable. In order for a statement to be empirically verifiable, then there must exist some piece of empirical evidence (observable state of affairs in the world) which can state definitively whether something is or is not the case. However, only if a statement is empirically verifiable can a statement be referred to as possibly true or false, because truth or falsehood require verifiability because all statements which lack evidence are necessarily speculative, meaning that they are opinions and not facts. So, while opinions can have meaning only if they are analytically verifiable, unless there could conceivably be evidence which states that some statement is or is not the case, it cannot be classified as either true or false. What is or is not, as such, is not contingent upon intuition, which entails feeling and not careful observation of the real world. While we can think, feel or believe as we choose, to say that something is false is to state that it is not the case -and there can be no empirical evidence against which ethical egoism can be measured. However, that does not mean that ongoing debates about political policy, criminal activity or other normative questions of what "ought" to be are meaningless. Rather, it is to acknowledge that what "ought" to be is not absolutely settled, and that only what "is" can be called true or false. If anything, acknowledging the distinction between statements of what "is" and what "ought" to be reemphasizes the both the meaning, and the absolute necessity for individuals to continually interrogate and challenge their normative beliefs to ensure that what they think "ought" to be is really what ought to be, rather than imprudently arriving at the conclusion that their conception of human ethical behavior is the final word. Therefore, my opponent's Frege-Greach example holds no water against my framework for this debate because it confuses a value judgement with empirical reality. Moreover, my opponent misunderstands what Ayer's verification principle denotes for meaning. Stephen says "that verificationism states that anything which cannot be empirically tested is meaningless." But, neither I nor Ayers made that claim. Ayer's verification principle holds that for statements to have meaning, they must be either synthetically or analytically verifiable. Synthetic verifiability requires logical consistency, whereas analytical verifiability requires the capacity to be tested against empirical evidence. A statement does not have to be both synthetically and analytically verifiable to have meaning, so it is entirely possible that any normative statement could be analytically verifiable and still have meaning, and yet not be empirically testable, so long as that proposition was logically sound. Therefore, Stephen's argument that Ayer's verification principle is self defeating because it cannot be tested equally holds no water, because it is analytically verifiable on the basis that it is without logical contradiction -as I have sufficiently explained above. In closing, because my opponent has failed in his rebuttal against my argument that ethical egoism not false, because he has not dismantled my framework and all of my previous arguments still stand. In that I have sufficiently argued that ethical egoism can be neither true nor false, I have won this debate. Many thanks to all who read, and to Stephen for this delightful exercise.