Society should regret the common narrative of good triumphing over evil in children's entertainment

A) What Good and Evil Mean My opponent misunderstands the argument. It certainly does establish good and evil; the Good is the goal, and evil is that which contradicts the striving towards the goal. The “strongest possible motive” is the motive to reach the ultimate Good in Itself. Anything else is, by definition, not the strongest possible motive. Also, my opponent misses the mark on the Kant quote; Kant meant exactly what he said: that there cannot be a moral ideal which one cannot reach, for one cannot strive towards that which is forever out of reach. When taken in context with the rest of my argument, this means that good men are good volitionally. My opponent says I have given no means to evaluate goodness; this is simply false. That which impedes virtue is evil, and that which unlimits it is good. This being given, it’s incredibly simple to distinguish good from evil - the metric is right there. Perception is totally irrelevant here. I have given an objective moral standard; what people think does not matter, and my opponent has not given a reason to believe it does in relation to the resolution. B) Aesthetics and Morality My opponent says that I have offered no reason to prefer bringing goodness into the world, rather than evil. The problem is clear: there can be no reason to create evil, for evil is an anti-goal. To intentionally do evil is to give up any moral nature whatsoever. The evildoer then becomes non-moral, which means that they cannot be said to be “obligated to regret GTOE”. Good is always preferable to evil simply because it is good. The good ought to be done, because the good is what ought to be done. My opponent then goes on to talk about the troubles which come with high role models. This is all dealt with with the recognition that morality is voluntary. If, as my opponent even admits, these role models are at the upper limits of what is possible, they are still emulable. If “limited mental resources” limit a child from an ideal, that child is a non-moral being, and therefore is irrelevant. If there is no such limit, ideals are not fiction. 1) Creativity 1.1: If there are virtually infinite variations within GTOE, and such variations are not enough to “raise creativity”, why would changing GTOE itself do anything? Why does GTOE have priority over anything else? If it doesn’t, why ought we regret it? Consider Les Miserables, Good Will Hunting, and 24. Each are wildly different, yet each have GTOE. Does this matter, in light of their tremendous gaps? Changing the colour of the sky is a change; many such changes are possible outside of changing GTOE. 1.2: Quantification is essential in an on-balance debate. Without quantification, there is no way to judge impacts; as such, this argument cannot be weighed objectively. Pro refuses to give a straight answer. How much do the impacts my opponent lists owe their severity to GTOE specifically? The sky is blue, arson is bad, and good should triumph over evil. This is exactly my point - each trope is justified by objective reality. Pro ignores the question: should any of the tropes I listed last round be regretted? And, if not, what makes GTOE regrettable, especially after I have shown its thorough grounding in reality? My opponent strawmans my last point as well. I did not say that creativity should be limited because of the spectre of serial killers. I said that the spectre of serial killers shows that creativity is not a good in itself; it is not the be-all end-all. The serial killer is creative, yet should not be lauded, not because the creativity is bad, but because the creative medium, whether killing or ETOG, is bad. 2) Real-World Learning 2.1: My opponent accuses me of repeating my arguments, yet repeats his. I have conclusively shown the nature of morality many times over; extend those arguments. There aren’t “types of evil” depending on one’s subjective whims. Evil transcends opinion. It is a metaphysical truth. Individual acts, taken in totality, are what make an individual good or evil. This is not irrelevant. 2.2: I did not examine moral duty in depth because my opponent didn’t offer anything to examine. His argument was, in effect, “moral duty, therefore Pro.” Why moral duty? My opponent did not offer any answers. Here, in his “clear” explication of the “implicit” warrant, my opponent does more of the same: he says that society has a moral duty to stop harm because… blankout. This is not an argument. He then goes on to talk about how American society *acts*. This is purely descriptive, not normative - therefore, it has no bearing on ethics. What is is not a warrant for prescribing what ought to be. My opponent must show *why* diversity should be fostered, not just point out that it is. - This is a logical truth: If evil is only done out of free will, and root causes *are causes* (aka external causes, which are incompatible with free will), then evil cannot have root causes. This is not “handwaving”; my opponent’s faulty conception of evil is handwaving. My conception of evil has been defended previously. 2.3: I assumed it was obvious to all that, if morals are not universal, the idea of an indiscriminate “duty” placed on anyone, regardless of their subjective values, is contradictory. It implies that objective claims (“Thou shalt care for your neighbour”) are compatible with claims against objectivity full stop. This is clearly absurd, and my opponent effectively refutes himself, unless he decides to drop one or the other. 2.4: I have shown, a priori, that, if something is good, it is achievable. Reasserting that it is not is not an argument. 2.5: My point here was that the good *should* be diametrically opposed to evil; the good *are*. Not recognising the superiority of the good can only help evil.