it is not possible to know whether or not categorical imperatives exist

I'm excited to see where this debate takes us. I accept all your definitions and would like to add two of my own:Def 1 - Possible: Something that can happen. Having precedent or parallel comparison. Def 2 - Not Possible: Not able to be, exist, or happen. Also in regards to the "special rule" I will point out that as Pro has taken on a shared burden of proof and must show it is not possible to know whether or not categorical imperatives exist. This seems like an near impossible task. Pro must prove that you cannot prove that categroical imperatives exist and must simultaneously prove that you cannot prove that they also don't exist. Good luck to my opponent! Arguement:Pro states in their definitions that "a proposition is a categorical imperative if performing the action implied by it, produces results that are objectively good or that the action is objectively good in and of itself. "My arguement goes as follows:P1) Human well being is the objective metric we use to determine moral actions. P2) There is precedent for moral actions resulting in human well being. c) Human well being is a catagorical imperitive and it is known to exist. Premise one should come as no surprise to anyone. Humans are a social species. Societies that work together survive. Societies that don't work together don't survive. It is in everyones best interest to pursue human well being. This is backed up by the objective science of Theory of Mind and Cognitive Empathy. Premise two is demonstrable in a million different ways. However, just to give one example, yesterday I saw someone walking across the cross walk and I slowed my car down so that I did not hit them. This was an objective moral action. Me applying my breaks promoted human well being. Please note that human well being is a descriptor of reality. It describes something that really exists. This completely refutes the proposition that it is not possible to know whether or not categorical imperatives exist as we do know that they do exist. Counter Arguement:Pros first premise is fundamentally flawed. They state, "If two worlds are indistinguishable from one another and one of the worlds has something in it that the other does not, it cannot be known whether the thing exists or not. "This is entirely rediculous. If one world has something in it that the other world doesn't have then, by default, that thing exists. If you and I are identical and I have something that you do not have then the thing I have must exist. If the opposite is true, and the two worlds are truly indistinguishable from one another then they would both have the exact same things in them. And, if they both have the exact same things in them, it would follow that if one world did not have something in it then you would know the other world does not have that thing in it either. To say otherwise would violate the Law of Noncontradiction. Pro then goes on to argue in their second premise that we can't tell the difference between a world with catagorical absolutes and a world without catigorical absolutes. I am currious as to how Pro has come about this knowledge. Has Pro seen worlds with catagorical absolutes and also worlds without catigorical absolutes so that Pro can judge that they are indistinguishable? (This is philosophy 101; in order for a premise to support a conclusion the premise must be known to be true. Conclusions cannot be based on unproven claims. And pros second premise is purely conjecture. There is plenty of room for opinion in these debates but the one place opinion absolutely shouldn't be is in a premises. Pro needs to either put forth evidence for p2 or concede that it is not a valid premise). If Pro could say that cotigorical absolutes do not exist in one world then Pro would know they do not exist in both worlds. The arguement put forth by Pro that it is not possible to know whether or not categorical imperatives exist is defeated by his own premises. Either things are known to exist or things are not know to exist. And, in the catagory of things not known to exist, it is not possible to determine whether or not they are knowable until we discover their existance. For things which have not been descovered, we do not yet know if they are knowable or unknowable. To give an example, it is not known if life exists on the planet Mars. We neither know that "there is life" nor do we know that "there isn't life. " We disbelieve both propositions simultaneously. This is known as the null hypothesis - disbelief is the default position. To move from "we don't know if there is life" to "we know there is life" would require evidence. And, to move from "we don't know if there is life" to "we know there is no life" would also require evidence. To prove that it cannot be known if "there is life" and also prove that it cannot be known that "there isn't life" would require proving that there exists no evidence "for life" and also there exist no evidence "for no life" on the entire planet. To prove that there exists no evidence for either proposition is a truly daunting task and would require a thorough search of all of Mars. Likewise, Pro must simultaneously prove that there is not in existance - anywere - any evidence for "categorical imperatives" and must also prove there is not in existance - anywhere - any evidence for "no categorical imperatives. " Well that should be more than enough to get this debate in gear. I eagerly await Pros response.