Atheist have more morality than Christians.

"First I would say true morality is not divinely inspired it is subject to social workings of individuals within a society." Pro makes a claim here, but fails to provide evidence that morality is subject to social workings of society. Pro also uses the term, "true morality", which I will ask that Pro define. To counter this argument that "true morality" is subjective here I will simply leave a hypothetical: Firstly, can "true morality" be TRUE morality if it is subjective? And secondly, if Nazi Germany won WW2 do you think everyone, around the globe, would agree that killing African Americans and Jews was right? And if I steal your wallet because it isn't wrong to me, does that make it right for you?"Why is it that the far majority of tribal societies(hunter gatherers) existed in relative peace for thousands of years without a Christian influence. This is not to say they did not at times fight, kill, or steal from each other, yet they still existed in an area without wiping out one culture for another. Can a people coexist without the Christian gods guidance of morality? Apparently so Australian Aborigines existed a together for tens of thousands of years with out such an influence and by comparison to other aboriginal groups they were quite peaceful and accepting." Pro here draws quite a bit of assumptions, and seems to forget that if morality is NOT subjective than Christianity makes an effective case against this argument. Christians (those they dispute over trivial things and doctrine) agree that having a Moral Law Giver (God) produces Moral Law. That is; the sense of justice, right and wrong in people. Without any evidence to back up Pro's claim that "TRUE" morality is relatively true, there is no argument here. "It should be noted the first recorded genocide is found in the bible:Deuteronomy 20:17 "Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.""Interestingly enough Pro has accepted the use scripture in this argument, which therefore further demonstrates that my case in round one of this debate is set in stone. Pro goes on to say, regarding this lonely verse that isn't swimming in context (which should also be considered), "Does my opponent accept this as moral because a God commanded it to be so. Yet for it to be moral by god one must first believe there is a God and to an observer outside of this doctrine would they see this act as moral? Morality is not divinely inspired, it is innate to all social creatures on this planet. Does a wolf kill one of it's own pack when game is hard to find. This is a moral act not based on just survival, so therefore morality is a natural state with no need for God to inspire it."My opponents argument has completely fallen apart in this paragraph when he fails to recognize the historical context. But instead of going into the Hebrew word for "destroy" here, I will actually just take it apart based on Pro's previous statements.My opponent goes to support subjective morality, but implies that this passage is immoral, if morality is subjective than this case is irrelevant. Since subjective morality is based off of ones opinions and emotions we can conclude whether or not Pro, himself, deems this event as wrong morally to be irrelevant. Pro insists that Morality is not divinely inspired and makes a fatal mistake in his arguments. Pro states, "Morality is not divinely inspired, it is innate to all social creatures on this planet." Interestingly enough, Pro makes this statement that Morality is innate (natural) to all creatures, but does exclude human beings here? Pro made the statement that, "First I would say true morality is not divinely inspired it is subject to social workings of individuals within a society." Pro has claimed that Morality is natural (or a natural state) to all social creatures on this planet, yet declares that morality is subject TO social workings of individuals within a society. Pro cannot seem to agree on his own position here, either morality is a social construct (in my own words) or it is a natural state. If morality is a natural state than Pro must also show us where Morals are given to us since he merely insists that morality is not divinely inspired. Pro makes the claim that morality is a natural state, but without suggesting any alternative that he doesn't contradict himself. Ultimately his argument is, "I know what it is not." Pro has not shown that morality does not originate from God as his outline says he would. Pro has merely displayed that he can make the claim that he would say morality is not divinely inspired. "I would say true morality is not divinely inspired." Pro's conflict in himself as to whether or not morality is a social construct or innate has shown there is not a case here. Secondly, based off of everything Pro has said, he has failed to demonstrate how his case proves his claim that "atheists have more morality than Christians." Consider this; Based off of Pro's conclusions so far, the Old Testament has multitudes of "principles and beliefs that indicate good and bad behaviors" which has been passed down for generations over thousands of years. By excluding Christianity as a source of morality Atheists in fact have LESS morality than Christians. Pro's definition of morality: "principle and beliefs that indicate good and bad behaviors." And in fact, in the Old Testament alone, there are 613 laws. Regardless if we observe them all, we HAVE them all. If you take Christianities influence out of society, that makes atheists roughly 613 laws short of catching up to Christians and that is only including the Old Testament.With all of this mentioned, I urge Pro to rethink everything presented and also urge Pro to consider the following, for his benefit: what is good and bad, and where does it come from? How can you define good and bad?I have refuted Pro's arguments and refuted his resolution in an additional way according to His definition of morality, which I will remind you, wasn't presented in the correct round. I urge the readers to consider this when voting.