Society should regret the common narrative of good triumphing over evil in children's entertainment

My opponent says that I have not shown any “benefit” of GTOE. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my case. I have not endeavoured to show, as my opponent has, that certain statistics change due to the acceptance or rejection of GTOE; I have not made any mention of these sorts of things. What I have spent the whole of my case doing, and what I have done, is show that it is nonsensical to say that we “ought” to regret GTOE. There would be nothing wrong with a work in which G and E are never seen in active conflict; a “passive” morality play is not, in any way, immoral. But that is, of course, not what this debate is concerned with. The question is not about whether “G-alone” narratives are better or worse than GTOE ones, but about whether GTOE’s prevalence is regrettable. Nothing about admitting some (moral) alternatives leads to the conclusion that GTOE is, itself, immoral. As an aside, note that, this entire debate, my opponent has proposed as alternative only narratives which put G and E on equal footing, or even those which have ETOG. His arguments are centred around a destruction of the concepts of “good” and “evil”. The argument he is making now is entirely opportunistic and has no place with the rest of his established framework. I have dealt with the supposed arguments against GTOE on the grounds of “ego-depletion” and so on through my analysis of volition’s role in morality. As for “creating evil” in order for GTOE to exist, this point is based on a complete strawman of my argument. It is not that showing evil, in any form, is immoral. It is that showing a world where evil is superior to good is immoral. Good and evil cannot coexist; a good man cannot be evil. Thus, when one writes a good man into a story, he is also introducing the idea of evil, but, this time, as a negation. This is much the same as when good defeats evil; the conclusion, the key to the narrative, shows evil being reduced to negation. The existence of good implies an evil triumphed over. When I say that one must not create evil, I am referring to evil’s primacy. There may be an evil element in the work, but the work does not cast evil upon the world as long as that element is snuffed out. My opponent states that Aristotle’s work does not show us a basis for objective morality. However, he does so completely ignoring my analysis of how to get from his ideas to an ethics. I quote myself fully, for there is no reason to say again what was said perfectly previously: “From this all, it is plain that the Good must be attainable, and any moral agent must be able to be good by choice, and, on the reverse, any moral agent must be able to be evil by choice. If a man is doing anything volitionally at all, they have to be acting towards some goal, and that goal cannot be anything but the Good (for the Good is that which is aimed towards). Thus, what is not the Good is that which precludes the possibility of action towards the Good, for to deny this is to say that the Good is in not reaching the Good, a contradixion. This preclusion is the characteristic of an act which aims to deny free will, for accomplishing such a savage goal shall surely release one from moral concerns. A man is good, then, when he is able to attain the Good by virtue of what he is aiming towards and is able to reach – the Good – and evil when he reaches his goal when that which he is aiming towards is that which is not the Good, for this latter man, in his striving, strives to remain still; he strives to be outside moral concerns, to not have to pursue the true Good by rejecting pursuit itself, but he fails, as ‘If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. ’ ” My opponent admits my point re: Kant. For there to be a continuum, there must be two ends: good and evil. Since the totality of the continuum must be accepted (my opponent does accept the continuum), and since any point must be reachable by a previous point, either by moving left or right along the line of morality, good must be reachable. If good is reachable, and if one must always try to reach it, the quote says exactly what I have said it says. This is a deductive argument that my opponent admits the assumptions of. Pro, again, misinterprets The Philosopher. Actions are judged because actions aim towards ends. I have explained this above. I have proven that “root causes” are totally irrelevant in moral philosophy time and time again, and my opponent, in his usual manner, has chosen to just claim that he’s dealt with these proofs. Let the voters read our exchanges and know that he has not. The “failure” to emulate good characters can be understood much more clearly as this: the failure to be good. In this form, it is clear that a “lack of self-control” is no excuse. The murderer who pulled the trigger out of a lack of self-control does not get carte blanche; no evil can be excused for any reason. Anyone who tries to become good but fails would not otherwise be good. For, to try to strive for something requires not having reached it already, meaning that they were already, at best, amoral. Their failings are the failings of their characters, not the characters of Scooby Doo. My opponent also ignores a distinction; having “limited mental resources” makes one amoral, and thus they would never have been given the option to be good or evil in the first place. GTOE has no effect on them. Pro handwaves away my point that, even in movies which all follow GTOE to a T, there are incredible variations in characters by saying that he “disagrees”. Then he says that I have not offered any reason to accept my point here. This is clear sophistry, and voters should consider this point as dropped by him. Pro says that good and evil are dependent on “individual worldviews” and that, often, people mistake the good for evil. This has absolutely no relevance to my case. Those people are making a mistake, due to the objective nature of good and evil. They are just plain wrong. This affects reality in no way. My opponent has kept saying that he has “ascribed a clear moral duty” based on the fact that “society” is harmed by GTOE. This is exactly what I have been asking him to formulate as an actual argument. Nowhere in “X damages society along these lines” is “Society has a moral duty to rally against X” implied. And I have made my point clear here. I gave him the opportunity to respond and give his warrant for his claim. My opponent has, thus, completely failed to substantiate this contention, and it must be dropped. No “vested interest” can be assumed just because my opponent says it can. My opponent mangles moral philosophy when he says that he can prescribe a moral duty on the basis that morality is subjective, or, more precisely (to appease him), on the basis that there “objective harms” which result from the subjectivity of good and evil. Either way, his case depends upon the assumption that good and evil are subjective. He says himself that this is true. Let us analyse what this means: A) That “good”, being that which one should do, cannot be determined by anyone except the individual, and two individuals’ conceptions of what is good can differ; B) That “evil”, being that which one should not do, cannot be determined by anyone except the individual, and two individuals’ conceptions of what is good can differ; C) That, therefore, what one should and should not do are not able to be prescribed; D) That a “duty”, which is to say a “moral obligation” to do a certain thing, which is to say a “Thou Shalt”, cannot be prescribed; E) That duty and the subjectivity of good and evil are wholly contradictory notions. My opponent says that “All Con is doing is reinforcing the relegation of evil or non-moral people to a dehumanized status”, presumably showing that, even if good and evil are objective, they still have harms. However, if they are objective, I have shown exactly why the dehumanisation of evil is a fundamental good. My argument remains unscathed. Conclusion: What I have shown: 1. ) One cannot say that they “ought” to prefer ETOG. 2. ) Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent. 3. ) Therefore, we cannot advocate ETOG as an alternative to GTOE. 4. ) Therefore, GTOE is not regrettable, for it is our only option. This is a bulletproof deductive argument that precedes and precludes every stat my opponent dares throw out. My opponent has spent little effort even analysing it, so it stands, pillars pristine.