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

In the opening round Pro said, “A proposition is a categorical imperative if performing the action implied by it, produces results that are objectively good or that the action is objectively good in and of itself.” Both of us agreed to use this definition for this debate. However, unable to defend their position, Pro has tried to redefine the debate by saying this debate is about the knowability of, “whether or not (an) obligation exists without condition and is simply a feature of our universe.” But that’s NOT what this debate is about. We are NOT debating whether or not morality is “a feature of our universe.” However, what we ARE debating is whether or not we can know if actions are objectively good. By way of example, we know the temperature of the earth’s core. We also know that if the earth were larger or smaller that temperature might be different. But, just because the earth “could” be larger or smaller, it in no way impacts the knowability of the cores temperature at its present size. We make objective determinations about reality as it is. Just because things “could” be different doesn’t mean objective truths are not knowable. Por then goes on to make the same fallacious argument by saying, “this desire (morality) would still simply be conditional to whether or not we have evolved to have it.” Pro is arguing that since evolution is “conditional” then the knowability of moral actions must also be “conditional.” This is a false equivocation. It would be like saying it is unknowable if “standing upright” exists - because bones are a product of evolution and if evolution hadn’t given us bones we wouldn’t be able to “stand upright” therefore its existence is unknowable. This argument is not valid in the slightest. And yet this is the EXACT argument Pro is making. Simply substitute “standing upright” with “categorical absolutes” and “bones” with “morality”: Whether or not “categorical absolutes” exist is unknowable - because morality is a product of evolution and if evolution hadn’t given us morality we wouldn’t have “categorical absolutes” therefore its existence is unknowable. This arguement is not logically valid. A more simply analogy would be that I know that my car is blue. I “could” have painted it red. But whether or not its color “could” be a different in absolutely no way effects the fact that I can objectively determine its color now. It’s color is knowable. Likewise, categorical imperatives are knowable. It doesn’t matter if the imperatives “could” be different in some other reality. In closing, Pro has failed to demonstrate that it is not possible to know whether or not categorical imperatives exist. Pros entire argument hinged upon the claim that "a world with categorical imperatives and a world without categorical imperatives are indistinguishable from one another." However, Pro was unable to demonstrate this to be true. Conversely, my position is that the existence of categorical imperatives is knowable. I supported my case by showing that human well being is the objective metric used for determining moral actions. And, in accordance with Pros defintion of Categorical Absolutes, we know that we can produce actions that are objectively good. As such, we know that Categorical Absolutes exist. I would like to thank Pro for setting up the challenge and putting so much time and effort into their responses. I would welcome another debate with you and hope to see you on the battlefield soon.