Shove the Fatman, or, Huzzah for Sophisticated-expectablist-rule-consequentialism!

My opponent claims that my practice is bad for debate. If we are to debate a hypothetical situation, we must not just assume that everybody is equal in guilt and importance, unless the situation specifically specifies this to be the case. My opponent's stubborn insistence to view a hypothetical through the lens of simplicity rather than observing the entire scenario is what is bad for debate. My opponent criticizes the topicality of my arguments. However, my central idea (gaining information before making a decision) is highly topical. Why should one not gather as much relevant information as one can before making a decision? This is highly relevant to the resolution, as I propose that under certain situations, it would not be ethical to push the fat man. As this negates the resolution, it is very topical [1]. My opponent criticizes my practice of observing specific hypotheticals within the blanket hypothetical. However, if my opponent admits that in such scenarios, it would be wise not to push the fat man, isn't it important to observe the scenarios in more detail? The details are so relevant that a decision cannot be made ethically without them. My contention is that gathering information is more ethical than making a snap decision. My opponent discusses how often the trolley problem is used in ethics, with a rather irrelevant history as well. However, the ultimate problem with this is that everybody assumes the trolley problem to be simple. However, it is highly complicated once we realize that the fat man might be very important, the five men might simply be suiciding, or the fat man could be standing on a land mine. If my opponent intended for us to be debating with the assumptions that the five people fell accidentally, all six men are of equal importance, and there are no land mines, this should have been clarified in the first round. Or, my opponent could have said that I do not have access to the relevant details. However, he did not, so I have access to details, and therefore, it is more ethical to take these details into consideration than to not. My opponent claims that I have modified the scenario. I have done no such thing. I simply pointed out that within this scenario, there is a chance that the fat man is standing on a mine, and therefore, one should check that the fat man is not standing on a mine before pushing the fat man. I have never said that the fat man is most definitely standing on a mine. My opponent's accusations are unfounded. My opponent claims that making observations is irrelevant to the topic. However, my goal in this debate is to propose a combination of actions that would be more ethical than my opponent's. Making observations was never excluded from the pool of actions from which I could draw. My opponent claims that all of my justifications involve rare scenarios that probably would not occur. This is false. Three of my proposed justifications for not pushing the fat man involve no rare circumstances. 1. The five people are quite likely paralyzed. Therefore, a train wreck would put them out of their misery, and they would not spend the rest of their lives miserably in bed, doing nothing. 2. If it's the five people's own fault that they fell off (reasonably likely), they deserve to die more than the fat man. 3. My opponent ignored my questioning whether or not he would voluntarily give his life to stop the train if he were the fat man. If the answer would have been "no," then there's no justification in forcing a person to make a decision that you would not have made yourself. My opponent claims that my hypotheticals are different from his hypothetical. However, Situation Y is a sub-situation of Situation X. Therefore, given Situation X, one must first check to see whether or not Situation X is also Situation Y. Additionally, I have justifications that require no Situation Y. My opponent has ignored them. My opponent repeatedly claims that I offer no alternative justifications. However, I have three listed above, summarized from Round 3, I have offered three justifications for why NOT to push the fat man in Situation X, and numerous more justifications in the numerous sub-Situation Ys, situations in which my opponent's course of action would clearly be morally wrong. My opponent completely ignores what I say. The vote should be CON. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate)