Though experiments are important.

On the train switch In an effort to argue not to flick the train switch, we can see that pro has had to add extra detail to the scenario - namely asking us to image the 5 children are terminally ill (reducing their utility). Of course, the initial scenario did not have the postulates in it, and I was clear in stating in my initial argument that, unstated, we would have to treat the people in the scenario is being equal for all intents and purposes.I do agree with pro that if you modify the scenario sufficiently, it may become morally right to not flick the switch. But as the discussion should be focused around the initial scenario - where the problem was free from such changes as pro is asking us to imagine, I do not need to argue further.Pro also then attacks the positied moral frameworks by arguing that a lack of absolute morality implies morality does not exist. This objection is both frivolous (whether or not pro believes those frameworks are valid does not effect the fact that many people utilise them to come to moral decisions), and baseless. It is baseless because the implication that absolute morality - where moral decisions are indepndent circusmtance, culture, belief and opinion - is the only valid type of the morality has not been supported at all. In fact, with this statement pro discards all secular ethical systems, all normative moral systems, all subjective moral systems and most objective moral systems, leaving her only with a subset of deontological ethical systems. This is a large claim, one that would probably need its own debate, and introducing it as an unsupported argument in the concluding statement is not proper debate format.Finally, pro states there is "no circumstance whatsoever" in which flicking the train switch would be morally right. I have already demonstrated this to be incorrect under at least utilitarian and consequentialist frameworks. The fact that pro now rejects those frameworks does not impede other people from holding them and believing their acions are morally right.I have provided solid grounds showing that under more than one moral framework, all people treated equally, it would be morally right to flick the train switch. The chicken or the eggPro is correct that provided an argument contingent on evolution that may not apply under creationism, and this is correct. However, given that evolution is one of the most confirmed scientific theories of all time, and creationist predictions have been shown to be scientifically falsified time and time again, I feel like this is a safe assumption. If anyone has interest on this topic, I would be more than happy to accept a debate on evolution or creationism and illustrate my point further.Even for those reading this that may accept creation accounts as true, I believe there are still grounds to accept my argument. Under a creationist viewpoint, evolution does occur, but stays within kinds. Thus, after the great flood where every "kind" was gathered on the ark, there would still need to have been a great deal of speciation and evolution within the bird kind to get the diversity we see today, providing solid grounds for accepting the speciation of chickens as having happened regardless of whether or not creation accounts are accepted. The quantum mechanical falling treeWhilst my opponent had to put her argument in the comments, I will address it anyway. Pro's argument that quantum mechanics requires perception is a common misunderstanding of quantum mechanics (pro may not have known, but I am a physics student having studied QM for my degree). It stems from a misunderstanding of the von-Neumann interpretation of quantum mechanics by interpreting a "measurement" to be a measurement by a conscious observer. However, in QM, a measurement is simply an interaction, and is not dependent on consciousness or perception. For external verification, simply read the introduction to the article "Does quantum mechanics require a conscious observer?", found here (http://journalofcosmology.com...). Thus, I can safely dismiss pro's latest argument, and my final statement that the laws of physics imply a falling tree makes a noise are thus uncontested.ConclusionThroughout this debate I have provided solid reasons to accept outright that the falling tree does make a sound, and that speciation of the chicken means that the chicken egg came before the chicken. I have also shown that under multiple moral frameworks, flicking the train switch is the right course of action.Thank you to alyfish126 for the debate.