That’s exactly what we did, attempted to transcend the conventional standard. That’s what we had to do. Let’s assume for a second that ILO (As a team) could come up with one thing so vile and wrong that no human being would be capable of doing it, even if we were to do that it wouldn’t be a Universal Morality, per se, but simply a Universal Moral, and one Moral does not a Morality make.
Just for the sake of argument, even if Team ILP were to accept a single Moral as an entire Morality, the fact that no human could do the thing described still would not prove anything. The very fact that someone could think of an example of something that no person could ever do indicates that someone could actually conceivably do it, because for a thing to be inconceivable one must not even be able to think about it.
So, the next strategy is to take it the other way because morality usually entails not doing something that could be construed or generally regarded as bad, but then what if we could come up with something Universally regarded as good that virtually everyone does as a matter of course? It still wouldn’t matter because there are certain groups of people (i.e. mentally handicapped) that it could still probably not be applied to.
So, we pretty much had to change the terms of the entire Debate which required an overhaul on what is construed as Morality. With the path we chose, it actually 180’ed the argument and made it near-impossible for ILP to argue against us because the nature of our argument was self-contained, how can anyone possibly help but do whatever it is they are going to do when they must always be doing something?
So, that makes the very doing of anything moral, or even the doing of nothing because inaction is still a form of action.
Anyway, we basically had to go with that, and the fact that immorality (under our definition) doesn’t actually exist (or cannot exist) isn’t really important because it has nothing to do with there being a morality. That would be like saying that God cannot be Universal without there simultaneously being no God, that makes no sense.
Anyway, some Debates without clearly defined bounds work much like a legal trial works. It is largely about controlling definitions and terms of the argument. Even though laws are written to avoid ambiguity many of them are ambiguous, especially when it comes to proper sentencing, so there is a lot of argument that has to go on there. In this case, though, the bounds were pretty clearly defined, so it was the bounds themselves that had to be changed, a paradigm that needed to be shifted.
So, to answer the question do I really believed what ILO described to be the Universal Morality. Probably not, but it is just as good as there not being a Universal Morality, either way, the end result is the same people do whatever they think is best for them to do at the time.