it is not possible to know whether or not categorical imperatives exist

defense and attack:"Everything that someone desires is subjective and thus conditional."this is not the message I was trying to get out. I acknowledge that our desires are based on our biology. my 'rube Goldberg machine' was to show that I didn't actually have to go into an alternate world to obtain premise 2. as I stated, it was really just a overly complicated version of my earlier shorter defenses of my second premise. the whole section was even called the 'rehashing of the defense of premise 2'.I have already agreed that we can make objective measurements about human well being, and presently, I will agree that all of our desires are not purely 'subjective'. that they are based on our biology. however, in conceding that, I can also say that my enjoyment of apples is not 'purely subjective', that its based in some sense on my biology, and even (when talking about the individual sugars and nutrients) in my genes. that these things are objective is however, besides the point.this debate is about the knowablity of the existence of categorical imperatives. the knowablity of universal and unconditional moral obligations. we may be "impelled" by our biology to favor certain flavors and smells over others, and more strongly impelled to prefer the joy of our fellow humans over their suffering, but the question is not whether we feel a empathetic impulse toward or against certain actions, it is about whether we are "obligated" to do said actions. more specifically, whether or not that obligation exists without condition and is simply a feature of our universe.surely you would agree that we have the ability to resist the less basic biological impulses. no matter how hard we try we cannot resist the urge to breath (I would call that a biological compulsion), but we are capable of, say, training ourselves to enjoy certain flavors(acquired taste). though not as easily as acquiring taste, we are capable of dulling our sense of empathy. so the question becomes, are we obliged not to do so? specifically, are we categorically obliged not to do so and can we even know the answer to that question, if their is one?I have no problem admitting that we can know whether or not we are biologically impelled to do things. that we have an 'impulse to desire'. this desire however would still simply be conditional to whether or not we have evolved to have it. it would be an objectively real desire produced by an objectively real biology, but there would be no objectively real categorical obligation. (or if there was, the biology of the matter would have nothing to do with it).put in the form of my 'rube Goldberg machine': even if all people in the world agreed that performing some action 'x' is morally good, and we all agreed on that because of some biological state 'y' that we all shared, that would have nothing to do with whether or not the statement '0x' (you ought to do x) was categorically true. it may be the case that "y -> 0x" is true, but if it is not also the case that 'y V 0x' is true (where V is being used as the inclusive disjunction) that is to say '(~y V 0x)&(y V 0x)' then '0x' is not a categorical imperative, because its truth is wholly contingent on the truth of some other state 'y'.premise 2 stands, and thus my conclusion.closingyou will remember my opening argument.p1) if 2 worlds are indistinguishable from one another and one of the worlds has something in it that the other does not, it cannot be known whether the thing exists or not.p2)a world with categorical imperatives and a world without categorical imperatives are indistinguishable from one another.c)it cannot be known whether categorical imperative exist.and you will remember cons opening argument:P1) Human well being is the objective metric we use to determine moral actions.P2) There is precedent for moral actions resulting in human well being.c) Human well being is a categorical imperative and it is known to exist.the debate has been filled with 2 key debate points. my second premise and cons first. rather ingeniously, con has formulated his previous round such that in defending his 1rst premise he necessarily deconstructs my 2nd premise. this is the reason I called the previous section of this round 'defense and attack'. I am convinced that I have properly defended my second premise, and with cons last round, I imagine he will be convinced he has defended his premise as well, so I will leave it to the voters to decide who has won. I would like to thank con for this enjoyable debate. though it is a shame we could not have explored the topic further, I had a great time debating. if we ever find ourselves debating some other topic, I'm sure the debate will be just as enjoyable, so if it happens, I look forward to it.