Objective morality does not exist

Note to voters: My opponent has placed their Round 4 arguments in the comment section. Please take the time to read it. 1. Pro makes unsupported claims about Smokers. Briefly, Pro states that “The decision is only irrational for the smoker if the long term effects outweigh the smoker’s enjoyment of smoking, which, to most smokers, it does not. While most [non-smokers/smokers/?] acknowledge the long term effects of smoking as worse for [their] well being than the short term happiness and stress relief that can come from it, smokers have come to a different conclusion…” What I draw from this is that most smokers have a better short term happiness in opposition to long term effects, yet Pro does not put in any statistics to support this claim. In fact it would seem that, many smokers have always wanted to quit, 9 out of ten smokers would state that if they could go back they would not have started. They also show that a higher percentage of smokers are depressed clinically and, despite Pro’s claim that smoking would be stress relieving, they are less likely to report positive emotions: including happiness, respect, etc [1-4]. Thus there is no direct evidence showing smoking actually helps to improve positive emotion. Also, I can flip Pro’s earlier argument and state that after the initial irrationality of new smoking for a couple of days, smokers are then less likely to quit because of addiction. 2. Pro commits slippery slope fallacy for his example of rape acceptance. While I have pointed out a source that overtly condemns rape, such as: “If in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die...Rape is an immoral act that goes directly against the command of God and His perfect moral law.” Deuteronomy 22:25-29 [5] There is no mention of rape in Pro’s source, and the argument relies on assumptions and syllogism, stating that rape would be the natural conclusion, as discussed in an article by debunked evil [6]. Furthermore, as I discuss below, I use rape as a tool to set up an objective situation (infant rape) which would have one conclusion. 3. Pro is shifting burden of proof, and contradicting the established definitions. Pro is ignoring the definitions posted in Argument 1. All that is required for something to be moral (or immoral) is a condition that would be put forward by all rational people (a consensus) based on a given situation; thus it allows the premise “it is bad for a person to rape an infant.” So by definition of that morality, the act of rape against an infant becomes immoral, since it defies the moral code. Even Pro implies that all rational people would state that infant rape is bad, therefore we have our morality. If you are arguing that morality cannot be determined by any consensus then you are essentially stating that neither subjective or objective morality cannot exist, as morality is defined by “all rational people”. Additionally, if all people went in and only got chocolate chip cookies because it brings them the most happiness, then by default it becomes factual that the chocolate chip cookie is the best cookie. If you are to state that objective morality does not exist, then for any given situation you should be able to find a divergent perspective justifying or condemning an act. I state that subjectivity is composed of meaningful purpose to humanity, and symbiotic correlations. Why is death/killing another human subjective? Because people can find scenarios where it becomes necessary and these have ties within nature: as see with lions killing cubs, cannibalism, etc. It is archaic nature to have deadly interactions as we attempt to coexist. However, if we were to consider a an organism’s purposeful extinction of its entire species, then clearly that would not share the same subjectivity and it defies the laws of biology as well. 4. Raping of a prepubescent child (including infant) has factual evidence of physical and psychological harm. a. Physical effects can be detrimental: In the worse case scenario, full penetration, the older the victim is, the more likely they will survive from full physical trauma. If vaginal penetration is conducted, there will be severe genital and internal injury, including tearing of the vaginal and hymen, rupturing of vessels, and potential closed fractures of pelvic bone. Anal penetration destroys perineum, and causes anemia. Abuse is so traumatic that it is believed many victims will lose consciousness, and that they will require extensive internal surgery to reconstruct a completely distorted anatomy [7-9]. It is suspected that higher percentage of infants will die from abuse, and neglect, in comparison to their older counterparts [10]. b. Psychological effects: Briefly, there are also long-lasting psychological issues that will arise, that both harms society as well as the individual, which include but are not limited to: decreased sexual function, PTSD, revictimization, and many more [11, 12]. Biologically this is unfavorable too; given the physical and psychological effects, the victim would be less likely to pass on genes. This goes against the main purposes of evolution and rights of humanity. 5. Nature implies more reason for immorality of rape. Briefly there are some animals, where the females have developed specialized genitalia to discourage and prevent aggressive or forcible mating [13, 14]. It has been observed that access to the vulva and subsequent copulation was facilitated by the female, thus limiting the risk of more physical harm or intimidation. The females were also able to selectively choose a mate. While this may seem like a red herring, I would argue that humanity’s greatest evolution was our mind. As we have not developed physiological barriers, we have the capacity and empathy to realize the harms and maliciousness of rape, and as a species have realized that it is an unfavorable act for the victim, as well as malintent for the abuser. Sources:1. http://www.gallup.com... 2.http://www.gallup.com... 3.http://www.gallup.com... 4.http://www.gallup.com... 5. http://www.godcontention.org... 6. http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com... 7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 8. http://www.forensicpathologyonline.com...-- 9. http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au... 10. https://www.childwelfare.gov... 11. https://www.rainn.org... 12. http://www.pandys.org... 13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 14. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...