Utilitarianism is flawed

I'd also like to remind the viewers not to vote on sources as agreed upon. The problem of 'consequence verses motive'First I requested my opponent directly answers my question of whether the man committed a moral or immoral act. My opponents negligence to comply only affects him negatively if the viewers take note. By the framework of utilitarianism, if an act promotes happiness, it is morally good. Rapping and killing the girl promoted happiness as proven and presupposed so according to utilitarianism, it was morally good. It doesn't matter how society regards torture. No human being would realize that the man was committing a moral act. All that matter is that according to utilitarianism, he was. Con simply states using torture for such petty reasons would result in anger and disgust. Well he's just changing the analogy. I said it would result in more happiness. If no-one knew about if for example, no anger or disgust would occur. My opponent also never even replies to my analogy except to call it an appeal to emotion. I have to say this seems to be just a cop out. Yes, I did strongly emphasize some of the factors but that was much more of an appeal to morality than emotion. I made the analogy so morally detestable in order to demonstrate the flaws in utilitarianism. I see no problem with that. It's a clear failure of a rebuttal. It does nothing in refuting the logic to my argument. My opponent is looking at it wrongly. Yes the lives of a few outweigh the lives of many. That is more morally desirable but is irrelevant. We're talking about the intrinsic moral worth of the action itself, not the outcome. If I caused a greater good with the intent of doing evil, how can I say the action has any intrinsic moral worth? Only the balanced outcome had worth too it but not the action itself. Bad intentions are immoral and good intentions moral, so it would follow that acting on evil motives does not have moral worth even if the outcome does. The problem of non-responsibilityI don't care what utilitarianisms aim is. I care about what its definitions is and what its framework implies. Here's where my opponents reasoning is flawed. He basically argues according to the bellow premises.1. Pros interpretation of utilitarianism is extremely bizarre. 2. Therefore it can't be true. The problem we have here is that all I have to do is argue according to the definition and I am committing no straw man whatsoever. Notice my opponent has not once referred us to the definition of utilitarianism given in the first round in order to refute me. He just argues his own unbacked explanations which are certainly bias to his feelings rather than utilitarian philosophy. So yes then, my opponent is only helping my case by indirectly conceding that his position is a bizarre one. I do indeed say that according to utilitarianism any indirect affect is accounted for. That is just simply self evident with the definition. "Actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness". It's just unfounded semantics to say this only implies direct causes. I'm not sure where con is going when he quotes me. Yes we could possibly argue that the man who planted the tree there did an immoral thing according to utilitarianism as it eventually resulted in someone not being able to eat his ice-cream. I didn't really want to go there since we have no way of knowing since it's possible the tree actually resulted in more happiness in other affects that it had. All it does is just further demonstrates the absurdity of the position in terms of acts that should be thought of as amoral. The problem of infinite consequences and impossible calculationsMy opponent dropped this since he didn't have the character space to respond. The problem of the subjectivity of valuesIt almost seems that con is agreeing with me here. He says he doesn't acknowledge the afterlife, so my whole point stands that according to utilitarianism, we have a moral obligation to impose our subjective values on people who do not wish it. Humans have rights. If they want to live according to their desire, I have no right to stop it as long it doesn't conflict with anything else. Con doesn't refute that some monks don't seek happiness, only says it's hard to argue what's in other peoples head. How does that refute me? Con could try to show that they did want happiness. I clearly showed how they did not seek pleasure and contentment in this life, as this life is the one that matters. Self-ownership objectionI never stated it would have to be implemented liberally. The thing is, moral obligations exist irregardless of whether humans ignore them, shove them down peoples throats or blatantly abuse them. In the torture analogy my opponent gave, the torturer sacrificed someone else's right for the greater good. That says nothing about our own rights. If utilitarianism is true, my opponent should donate all his money to the poor since refraining to do so results in less happiness. It's a question of whether rights outweigh obligations or obligations outweigh rights. Well as I am in ownership of my body, I don't have to sacrifice my life and limbs just to benefit other people. My opponent has not refuted self-ownership and if self-ownership is true, it clearly conflicts with utilitarian philosophy. Cons case for utilitarianism Most of my contentions would counter what my opponents says. Con advances the concept of happiness in support of utilitarianism, stating that if not all, most people seek it. I already refuted this with my "subjectivity of values" contention but I can go further. Why not advance a more inclusive moral framework? Why not say actions are good in so far as they satisfy the overall values of society? That way everyone who seeks happiness is accounted for and everyone who seeks things elsewhere is also accounted for. I think this is a much better system than what utilitarianism states. My opponent presents some of the good things utilitarianism entails. I admit it has good to it. That's obvious. But I've already highlighted the many undesirable things it also entails. Showing the very simple moral things it would entail does nothing if we look at in the larger scope of things. Con again looks at it incorrectly as I showed earlier. Both motivism and consequentialism can agree on what is the greater good. But the moral worth of the outcome =/= the moral worth of the action. So if I try to saves a persons life but end up doing the opposite by accident, the moral outcome of the event was completely undesirable even according to motivism, but the moral worth of the action was still good because he did it out of undeniably moral desires. Also the analogy con uses is utterly incorrect. How on earth would motvism value saving one life because it was your friends life over the hundred? ?? The act was done out of clear bias and immoral principles. Acting according to your own selfishness instead of acting selflessly for the good of society is blatantly immoral. How can con say motivism would advocate it?