Kantian metaphysics and epistemology is superior to Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics

IntroductionThis debate is for round 2 of Bsh1's Philosophy and Ethics Tournament. Thanks to Bsh for moderating the tournament, and I look forward to having this debate with Bossy. The topic of this debate involves two very broad philosophies; however, they likely will not end up being too big to handle since we are comparing one to the other. That means we'll probably only focus on the core components of each side. ResolutionKantian metaphysics and epistemology is superior to Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics.Burden of ProofThe burden of proof is shared.DefinitionsEpistemology:"Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry" [1].MetaphysicsMetaphysics is notoriously hard to define. I will leave this quote from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and would encourage anyone who desires a clearer picture of metaphysics as a whole to read the entire section of the entry that attempts to outline what metaphsics could be said to be as well as the section on the methodology of metaphysics. It would also be a good idea to review the topics and problems that a metaphysical enterprise generally addresses."...The academic rationalists of the post-Leibnizian school were aware that the word ‘metaphysics’ had come to be used in a more inclusive sense than it had once been. Christian Wolff attempted to justify this more inclusive sense of the word by this device: while the subject-matter of metaphysics is being, being can be investigated either in general or in relation to objects in particular categories. He distinguished between ‘general metaphysics’ (or ontology), the study of being as such, and the various branches of ‘special metaphysics’, which study the being of objects of various special sorts, such as souls and material bodies. (He does not assign first causes to general metaphysics, however: the study of first causes belongs to natural theology, a branch of special metaphysics.) It is doubtful whether this maneuver is anything more than a verbal ploy. In what sense, for example, is the practitioner of rational psychology (the branch of special metaphysics devoted to the soul) engaged in a study of being? Do souls have a different sort of being from that of other objects?—so that in studying the soul one learns not only about its nature (that is, its properties: rationality, immateriality, immortality, its capacity or lack thereof to affect the body …), but also about its “mode of being”, and hence learns something about being? It is certainly not true that all, or even very many, rational psychologists said anything, qua rational psychologists, that could plausibly be construed as a contribution to our understanding of being" [2].KantianAs pertaining to the philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Below is a short quote that by no means encompasses all of his philosphy."Kant responded to his predecessors by arguing against the Empiricists that the mind is not a blank slate that is written upon by the empirical world, and by rejecting the Rationalists’ notion that pure, a priori knowledge of a mind-independent world was possible. Reason itself is structured with forms of experience and categories that give a phenomenal and logical structure to any possible object of empirical experience. These categories cannot be circumvented to get at a mind-independent world, but they are necessary for experience of spatio-temporal objects with their causal behavior and logical properties. These two theses constitute Kant’s famous transcendental idealism and empirical realism" [3].Objectivism"Objectivism is a philosophical system developed by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand (1905–1982). First expressed in her novels and polemic essays, it was later given more formal structure by her designated intellectual heir, philosopher Leonard Peikoff, who characterizes it as a "closed system" that is not subject to change. Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic..." [4]. FormatRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Each debater presents his case. Con is free to fit his case and rebuttal as he best sees fit. If he only has space for his case, he may neglect the rebuttal of my case untill the next round. If he can only address part of my case in addition to making his own case, he may do that too.Round 3: Arguments and rebuttalRound 4: No new argumentsGood luck to my opponent![1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;