This house believes ethical egoism is false

Cheers, everyone. Before discussing my opponent's case, I want to explicate what I need to do in this debate, elucidate how I'm going to do that, and then, naturally, proceed to do it. In outlining what I need to do in this case, it is necessary to describe what I need to do to win this debate. Simply, I need to argue that ethical egoism is not false. I do not, however, need to argue that ethical egoism is true. But, a framework for delineating truth from falsehood would nevertheless be useful in determining whether or not ethical egoism is either true or false, and not neither true nor false. As such, I want to posit the idea that in order for something to be true or fall, there must be some conceivable kind of evidence which would indicate that a statement is either true or false -consistent with A.J. Ayer's verification principle. Simply stated, Ayer's verification principle holds that a statement only has meaning if it is either analytically (meaning that it logically coherent based on the meaning of words or deductive analysis) or empirically (meaning that a statement is true or false if empirical evidence would go towards establishing that the statement is the case or not the case) verifiable. From Ayers framework it follows, then, that all statements which are not empirically verifiable (meaning that there is no possible evidence which could indicate whether a claim is or is not the case) can be neither true nor false. It is at this point that I want to make a distinction between cogency and truth. To prove that some statement, claim or idea is cogent -which is to say that it is logically coherent- is not to say that it is true, if what that statement, claim or idea states is neither analytically or empirically verifiable. Rather, to say that something is or is not cogent is only to indicate whether a statement is analytically verifiable (and thus meaningful or otherwise) rather than empirically verifiable (and thus true or false). So, while my opponent might argue that ethical egoism is meaningful on the basis of its cogency, pursuant to Ayer's verifiability principle -that is to say nothing of whether or not it is true or false. But, this debate is over whether ethical egoism, which states in my opponent's words, that "the only thing of moral value is [one's] own personal self interest, and [therefore] nothing nothing else is of moral value" is or is not false, rather than whether it is meaningful. Because to be false requires the existence of some evidence which demonstrates that the claim posited is not the case and ethical egoism is, by definition, a statement about what has something of moral value, it can neither be true nor false because moral value is not empirically verifiable. So, ethical egoism cannot be false. Equally, it also cannot be true -but that too is beyond the scope of this debate. However, Stephen argues that "the pursuit of self-interest is acting without morality, and not able to be justified as a moral factor in its own right" and that "when we evaluate our acts based only on self-interest, then we are not acting within ethics" to the logical end that that ethical egoism's proposition is not cogent -but that does not mean that ethical egoism is false. As I have stated above, pursuant to Ayer's verification principle, while something may be analytically verifiable (and therefore cogent or not), only empirical verifiability is sufficient to indicate whether or not some claim is true or false. Given that my opponent has offered no empirical evidence to prove that ethical egoism is not the case (nor could he, because evidence for claims as such does not exist) and therefore false he has failed to meet his burden of proof however readily he may have sufficiently established that ethical egoism is not cogent. Many thanks to all who read this. I'll look forward to Stephen's response.