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

My opponent continues to claim that I have added details. However, I have only discovered details. Upon observation of the scenario (my opponent concedes that I may use observation), if the full scenario actually involves one of the many sub-scenarios that I have discussed, then the fat man should not be pushed. This is more ethical, as it prevents pushing the fat man in those scenarios in which pushing the fat man would be unethical. I have never said that the people are guilty; I have said that if, upon observation, you discover that the five are guilty, you should not throw the switch. This can be applied to all sub-scenarios that I have brought up. My opponent claims that it was implied that no details could be added. However, I am not adding details, but discovering them? What time of day is it in the scenario? It could be high noon, late evening, or midnight. I would not say, "It is high noon, so. .. " I would say, "If it is high noon, then. .. " My opponent claims that details are not necessary to make an ethically justifiable decision. True; however, a more ethical decision can be made upon knowing ALL of the facts. My plan is to know all of the facts, then make a superior decision accordingly, if necessary. My opponent's link does not present anything about details at all on the pages that my opponent cited; they merely go over the trolley problem in general. As for my opponent's new context, I think that I can use this to show where I am coming from. If I were CON, I would say, "No, you should not just add more funding. First, you should check whether or not more funding is needed. If a cure for AIDS has already been discovered, then you should not add more funding. If a cure has not been discovered yet, then go ahead. This would be more ethically justifiable, because in the case that a cure has already been discovered, additional money would not be wasted in an attempt to rediscover it. " I have not declared that a cure has been found; I have declared that IF a cure has been found, THEN funding should stop. My opponent then comes to my three points. To counter his proposition that the preservation of life is most important, I have pointed out numerous things: 1. The people on the train tracks are quite likely paralyzed by the fall. If they live, they will live painfully, spending the rest of their lives in bed doing nothing. They'd likely rather be dead. What's the point in preserving the life of those who would rather be dead? The fat man, on the other hand, could continue to contribute to society. My proposal would mean less pain and more contribution to society. 2. My opponent has apparently admitted that if he were the fat man, he would not stop the train. I have attacked this to show that if you would not be willing to die for a cause, why is it ethical to force somebody else to die for that cause? I do believe that this trumps any desire to preserve life. My opponent has not responded to the above two points throughout the debate. As for the summary, I obviously disagree with giving Arguments to PRO, as I have been arguing CON the entire debate. However, I disagree with my opponent's command that you give sources to PRO. According to the article "How to Vote" [1], you should vote in the following way: "Which debater, on balance, proved their argument with sufficient quantity and appropriate interpretation of evidence? Was the evidence easy to read? Did it support the correct argument or was it just a link tossed in to try and fool the unsuspecting? " I have a sufficient quantity of evidence. Sufficient: enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end [2] My opponent has never criticized my arguments for not having enough sources. I have obviously had sources in the few times in which they were necessary. In conclusion, I have provided the action of observation to allow for more versatility, and the ability to make an even more ethical decision if Situation X happens to also be a sub-Situation X-Y. I have also given two good reasons not to push the fat man anyway (pain, hypocritical). The fat man should not be pushed without more observation. Vote CON! 1. . http://www.debate.org... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...