Moral motivism is more probable than consequence theory

Con has a shared burden of proof but has almost completely neglected it. He has hardly made a case of his own for why consequence has more moral worth than motive. Not only has he not made a case of his own, but he has done little actual refuting of my arguments save the assertion that my definition is wrong. Even if we take his definition, my arguments still completely stand since they all prove that motive is better than consequence. I could easily accept his definition and concede mine false and still be confident I had won the debate. I would also like to remind the viewers that this is the last round so if con were to make any new arguments, it would be blatantly poor conduct as is always when new arguments are made in the last round which the instiator cannot respond to. Therefore con has passed by his chance to make his case and so it is impossible for him to accomplish his burden. This leaves a pro vote as the only alternative as I am the only one who has argued according to his burden of proof. Rebuttal What refutation my opponent does direct to my arguments I'm afraid consists mostly of either bare assertions or misrepresentations. As the viewers will remember, I stated various arguments such as non-responsibility, moral free will and justification. I demonstrated that taking consequence theory, we could be committing good/bad acts while not being responsible for those actions. I also stated that assuming consequentialism, we would not have moral free will. Lastly I contended that taking consequence theory, justification would not be taken into account when justification should tie right into morality. In order to refute me, my opponent would have to go down one or more of two possible avenues of approach. Firstly he would have to argue that those mentioned factors are not really relevant to morality thus rendering my arguments null. Secondly he could argue that those factors do matter but consequentialism is not exclusive of them. He has done neither of those. To reiterate, if all factors in our lives pointed to x being right, we would be justified in assuming that x was right, even if it was not. This is a simple analogy of what justice is. Justice is not based upon what happens to turn out best or correct. It's about whether your position was plausibly acceptable when taking into account other factors and limitations. My opponent states, "Non-responsibility is based on the notion that people or their action can be deemed Good or bad regardless if they have acted out of responsibility or not. " I really can't make much sense of this. I do not detect anything that would refute my position. Furthermore, that is not what I mean by non-responsibility. My argument was that if we take consequentialism, we could commit immoral/moral acts without even being morally responsible for those acts. It's like the analogy I gave in the second round. Causing your friend to drop his ice-cream by suggesting you walk over to a different part of the beach is not immoral because you were not responsible for it in any morally plausible way. The alleged strawman I have given the authority source backing my definition of consequantialism and my opponent has gone to say the definitions were most likely just for beginners to prepare for more complex theories. Well, as I have only even had a real interest in philosophy since this year, even if we were to take my opponents proposition that the definition is just for beginners, I hardly think that would matter. Besides, am I not allowed to use an intermediate definition if I wish? I can use any definition I want so long as I can back it up. .. And I have backed it up. Furthermore, my opponent is just simply incorrect when he treats it as something no-one in their right mind would advocate. One of the most comment ethical philosophies in fact subscribes to it; utilitarianism. I will quote a definition of the principle of utility. "The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. " . http://inside.msj.edu... As you can see, utilitarianism is clearly a philosophy that corresponds exactly to my definition. My opponent can no longer say my definition is just introductory for beginners. As far as what my opponent states about Hitler, I think him incorrect. Hitler acted on selfish, sadistic racist principles. It is laughable to say he acted from moral standards. Having said all that, I would simply ask my opponent, so what? So what about the definition? Even if we do accept that consequence is not the only factor to morality but just the main one, is it still not an implausible theory? I think the viewers will find my points still very safely stand whether we accept my opponents definition or not thus I would like to ask for a pro vote.