[Your preferred theory of ethics] is tenable when examined closely

Before I procede with this round of debate, I would like to define the term 'tenable' because I want this word to be equally understood by my opponent, the audience and myself.I don't want to be sleazy and grab and easy 'sources' vote here so I won't link the dictionary URL but the site I uses was oxforddictionaries.com if you wish to visit it.According to the definitions on that site, there are two aspects to being tenable:1. being able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection.2. being able to be held or used.The term 'held' refers to physical objects so shall not be applied in this debate.Now that I have established what exactly 'tenable' means, I shall announce that I agree with most things Pro stated in round 2 other than that most don't know how to apply Utilitarianism and that the results of the given scenario as well as any hyothetical scenario will be inconclusive to the extent that the 'more good / less evil' option isn't clear by the end of the process.Sub-Case 1: The Impossibility of Calling a Method of Moral Decision Making WrongWhether I had chosen Utilitarianism, Formalism, Rights Ethics or Virtue Ethics, this debate was impossible for Con to win from the get-go as long as I was his opponent. I chose Utilitarianism as, out of those four, it is indeed the system that was not only put the most thought into when making but which I personally have studied the history of far more in depth than the other 3.The reason why it is impossible for Con to ever win this debate is that there is no way to double check a result when it comes to moral decision making other than to use another method of moral decision making, which Con would also have to argue is flawed and thus is in an endless cycle of self-defeat. In other words, the only way Con could have won the debate would be if he had proven that using the chosen method of Pro, one could reach a conclusion of 'right' or 'wrong' on a choice in a scenario that another, non-flawed method of moral decision making concluded was the opposite result. Since Con is in a position whereby he/she has to prove any and all moral systems as flawed, Con is left with zero methods of double checking any result that Utilitarianism could reach on a matter and thus can't eve rprove that he result Utilitarianism produces is incorrect or flawed. Even if Utiliaranism were to produce an inconclusive result, perhaps that means that each choice is literally equally good and evil or right and wrong so that makes being inconclusive correct as a result. The only way to prove the being inconclusive is evidence of Utilitarianism being flawed would be to produce a different result with a non-flawed moral system and compare the two.Sub-Case 2: The Moral Method and The One Applying It are Separate EntitiesLet's take the case of long division and short division. These are two different methods of reaching the answer of a divsion operator sum. Let's say that Utilitarniam is long division and Con is saying it is flawed because someone who is incapable of correctly applying it reached an incorrect answer with long division but a correct answer with short division. This would seem like an airtight case against my chosen method at first because on top of them being wrong with my method they were right with another. Unfortunately for Con, even if this happened the debate is still not remotely won and this point is totally ridiculous to put forth as an argument against long division. The individual carrying out long division is the one who is flawed here.Following on from this, each and every person or group of people applying Utilitarianism may be psychopaths who can't comprehend other's suffering or joy, may even be mentally challenged to the degree that they can't process the variables all at once and iwll never be able to conclude if it's 'good' or 'evil' to do either option in a given scenario. This does not prove that Utilitarianism is flawed, this proves that people can be flawed with how they apply the method.Sub-Case 3: Most People Will Conclude the Same Result Using Any MethodSomething that is not commonly realized is that no matter what moral decision making method we use, most people who conclude 'good' or 'evil' in one option of a scenario will always conclude that using any method because their view of either action is so skewed based on preconceptions that they end up letting the moral system they are applying make them be 'right' instead of bothering to rethink things along the lines of the system.In fact most people would struggle to see a remote difference between virtue ethics and utilitarianism because to them 'seeking pleasure' being consistent between them is enough to ignore the 'majority' aspect of Utilitarianism.The methods can be as flawed or flawless as you want but the people using it will always be flawed.Sub-Case 4: The "We Can't Know The Consequences" Point Is IrrelevantThis is a limitation of the human being using the system. If there are incorrect predictions this is not an error with Utilitarianism but with the gathering of data which is first done to make it possible to use Utilitarianism. What Con said here is metephorically that since it's very difficult to correctly produce turqoise paint, that roller painting with turqoise paint is flawed.Sub-Case 5: Laws and UtilitarianismThe brilliance of Utilitarianism is that since whatever ends up with the most benefit should be the chosen action, it's clear that to obey the rules of the society is usually better than the uproar of a protest to change laws.Thus operating on the man is the 'good' option.