We ought to live by the maxim that the ends justify the means.

• We must be aware that pro holds the entire burden of proof in this debate, and the resolution as a typical baseline, defaults to the position of con if the affirmative debater fails to sufficiently uphold such burden and thus, the resolution. 
  

• We also must observe that the resolution holds no specification that limits the scope of our deliberation, or outlines specifications within the topic of discussion. In light of such, pro must argue that in the examination of any situation pertaining to the individual, and society at large, we ought to live by the maxim "the ends justify the means."
  

• Pro has also not properly defined what "the ends justify the means," entails. 
  

• Pro is proposing that we ought to live according to this maxim proposed by Niccolo Machiavelli. In order to argue the notion, we require from pro first, a moral framework that establishes a coherent range of moral importance as well as an argument indicating the validity and soundness of said moral framework. 
  
• Pro has proposed neither, and conclusively, his entire case of round one can be effectively discarded. 
  

• First, just because we already do something, does that mean we ought to do so? Many people commit murder and rape, but that does not entail we ought to do these things. Mall has not made an argument for what we ought to do. We can subsequently observe this with examples: 
  

• These are things people can do certainly, but what makes it true that we ought to act in such a manner? Maybe it is the case that people do these things to achieve ends that are subjectively desirable to them, but just because something is the case, why does that mean that it ought to be that way? This is, of course, the is-ought gap in manifestation. 
  

• The maxim of our debate is undoubtedly an application of consequentialism. 
  
• Either acceptable ends are objective, individual, or societal.
  
• Mall has not proven the former, and his examples seem to suggest the mode of individual relativism as opposed to cultural or societal relativism. This stipulates the case where the individual can supersede the regulations of society if their conception of desirable ends meaningfully differs, take the example of a woman murdering her husband because the end of wishing her husband dead justifies the means of achieving such. In essence, Mall argues that people ought to act in ways that deter from civility and order or social interactions and entails a state in which we lack the discretion to act coordinatively. 
  

1. Pro is making an ought statement, and must functionally bridge the is-ought gap divide.
   
2. Pro is making a moral claim and must posit a framework of moral acceptability.
   
3. Lastly, an absence of 1 and 2 default us to cultural relativism. Pro in this case must show how the actualization of individual conceptions of desirable ends will create a society that is desirable to inhabit, and as I have shown, this is far from the case.
   

The is-ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be) and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine

We should live and do live by doing what is to be done to get the results necessary.

• Pro holds the burden of proof for the claim and proposition "we ought to live by the maxim that the ends justify the means." Pro continues to state things people do, but this is not an argument that people ought to do these things. If pro fails to bridge over Hume's guillotine this point continues to be extended. The voting decisions seem simple from here.
  

• Circular reasoning: In essence: "people should do what gets the result they want because it gets the result they want." 
  
• In addition, Mall states "what is justified," however he gives us no moral framework by which we can know what is justified or not despite holding the full burden of proof.
  

• None provided, extend (see z.1 from round two as well as z from round one)
  

• Pro is claiming what we ought to do, thus, he must establish what is and what is not justified, and thus he must provide a moral/ethical framework. if not, then anything could be justified by the notions of the resolution like the holocaust, etc. The ends justify the means itself is an assertion concerning moral importance (see z. round one). How do we know what is of moral importance if pro has not even given us a moral framework? 
  

• Dropped. Extend. 
  
• My murder analogy is responded to in an incoherent manner where Mall makes unsubstantiated claims proponent to his lack of moral framework. The consequence is that Mall has not proven what can be justified or unjustified. If this is the case, pro argues that we ought to live in a chaotic society if people can act in accordance with whatever they feel is such. 
  

• Pro cannot make a moral ought claim without bridging the is-ought divide, so a voting decision for this debate must necessarily go towards con. Pro has not made a valid argument that upholds the resolution and has dropped all of con's arguments.