Moral motivism is more probable than consequence theory

My opponents overview of my argument is largely short and only scrapes the surface of what I argued. He does not mention issues I highlighted such as moral free-will, non-responsibility and justification. As con has failed to respond to many of my arguments, please extend those. Con has also failed to adequately support his side. As agreed upon, there is a shared burden of proof. My opponent has chosen however to only address my case while not making one of his own. I shall now address my opponents two contentions. "Begging the question"I'm not sure I entirely get my opponents point. I am not assuming motivism is true. I'm assuming that either motivism or consequence theory is true. In the context of this debate that is a true dichotomy. I personally believe in a more revised form of motivism but we're arguing between two theories and on which one is more probable, or superior. It is therefore acceptable, for purpose of debate, to assume that one or the other is true. One of the presuppositions of the debate even was that objective morality is true. We are just debating on which of two moral theories is more likely. I am simply arguing that motive has more worth than consequence. "Straw man" Con accuses me of straw manning him but I would have to very strongly contend that assertion. It is true that certain versions of consequentialism posit consequence to be only the main factor and not the sole factor. However, the definition I posted in the beginning says entirely the opposite. Now I do fully support the arguing of definitions in a debate if one is incorrect, but I hope the viewers will find con has no ground in his objections. I would also wish to assert the point that con has a large burden in arguing his definition, If both definitions are fitting, the first (mine) is to be assumed. My opponent has to prove my definition is implausible. That is hard to do as I can quote direct philosophical material that supports my definition. From Philosophy Made Simple, Richard Popkin and Avrum Stroll page 47 http://www.scribd.com... Motivist ethical theory:"the rightness or wrongness of an action depends upon the motive from which the act was done."Consequence theory: "the rightness or wrongness of an action depends entirely upon the effects that the action has"As the viewers can note, I have and authoritative source backing the definitions I used. I wanted to debate the definitions provided like in this book. I am sure my opponent can find a definition that fits his version perfectly but then I would just go back to pointing to cons burden. He has to show that mine is not fitting. Not that his is fitting or even is more fitting but that mine is not worthy of recognition. Mine is clearly plausible as two philosophers and university professors use it in their book. It should be further noted that even if we were to take my opponents definition, he still has directed no efforts into substantiating its plausibility thus his argument has no impact. My opponent has done nothing to make a case of his own thus has gained no ground in accomplishing his shared burden of proof. This entails default to pro as I am the only one who has made arguments to support my case.