Ethical development must continue into adulthood

(1.) CON has employed psychological fallacy as a distraction as a tactic to straw-man my position for the purpose of taking an advantageous position he may argue from. This distraction tactic is evident in CON's claim to supposedly "translate" my position. I needn't remind CON "translate" is a Latinate term meaning "the act of having carried across;" this strategy is apparent when he (a.) begins his Round 1 post saying I have given clear definitions but then (b.) explains his Round 2 post saying that he translated my resolution into layman's terms—why translate clarity into laymen's? This act of translation is almost too evident when he assuredly asks in the interrogative "Ethical development has absolutely nothing to do with anything specific in the study of morality but only the capacity for to learn those things, correct?" (2.) CON has attempted to misuse authority in order to continue distracting onlookers by means of perverting my position. (a.) CON takes the single use of "discussion" in my previous post to claim I've made a categorical mistake concerning discussion and debate (a red-herring), I needn't remind CON or our onlookers that discussion is, upon consultation with OED, synonymous with debate (this is consistent with CON's inability to hide his subtle but perverting distinctions he introduces into the discussion). (b.) CON's imperial storming upon authority in this debate stems from his charge in the beginning of Round 2 where claims to have introduced nothing into the debate. Again, as is clear in his strategy, the only way CON has been able to position himself against the original resolution—my original position—is by means of altering my position so as to introduce an assumption: (c.) in Round 1 it came in his poor re-hashing of the distinction between ethical development and morality whereby he started his offensive by taking that poor re-hashed distinction (from the clear terms I begin with, the clear ones CON said were clear) and introducing a conception of development into his attack on my SUPPOSED assumption of "incomplete" (a term, once again, arising merely out of the conception of development CON has slipped into the discussion) ethical development in adulthood; (d.) in Round 2 CON's introduction of an assumption came in the form of his supposed "distinction" between "discussion" and "debate" which was a mere rhetorical ruse to give him a pivot to introduce an insubstantial normative claim trying to regulate how I manage my position—but "re-phrasing," as CON alleges, my position has not lead to any inconsistencies in my position (which is evident in the way that CON cannot attack any inconsistency), in fact, RE-PHRASING HAS BEEN PERFORMED AS A VALID MOVE whereby I, the advocate of the resolution, have attempted to thwart CON's tactic of perversion by simply re-articulating the same position yet again so as to not allow him to take up an attack upon the errant positions he has straw-manned for his attack, should there have been inconsistencies then CON would have been capable of extolling them for us, but, he has not. (3.) In another attempt at distraction CON, who says my arguments up to this point are allegedly "irrelevant," explains in Bulletin 1 concerning his analogy (which, by the way, is one of the most banal material fallacy's there is: the faulty analogy—but wait, is my argument about his faulty—and fallacious—analogy irrelevant?) that I ought not to make the analogy, a proposal of a relation between (I.) two things, here development of the moon and the ethical development of the adult, to be a slave to (II.) reality, development pertaining to one's ethical growth—or perhaps just development in general, which would be more fitting as I have shown the problematic nature of CON's conception of development. (a.) This is most easily an instantiation of a distraction because CON has actually contradicted the very nature of what an analogy is by trying to tell me not to take seriously the portrayed relationship of his analogy as it corresponds to the thing it has been chosen to shed light on.—In addition, CON's bulletin 2 is rather bizarre in that he proposes an explanation for his vast category of "the world" with petty squabbles that I don't think even the most imaginative of minds could explain the relevance of those types of problems to ethics or morality. (4.) Since CON has utilized misplaced authority he has attempted to bestow me the (unnecessary) grace of recapitulating my position (which, according to CON, is warranted because of my response in Round 2) but (1.) the problem, aside from his fallacious attempts to distract and gain authority in this debate, is that CON has implicitly argued that my first articulation of my position and my second articulation of my position are not consistent: (Round 1, PRO) "my argument is not necessarily advocating the development of morality (i.e., learning maxims or commandments for one's choices when dealing in society) but is advocating the development of those capacities which are not of an intellectual nature" (Round 2, PRO) "(2a.) I wouldn't say ethical development has to do with learning the objects of study in the field of morality; however, (2b.) I do claim there is learning occurring in moral and ethical development but the objects of study are different." Which addresses CON's coy question in Round 1: (Round 1, CON) "Ethical development has absolutely nothing to do with anything specific in the study of morality but only the capacity for to learn those things, correct?" Again, the purpose in Round 2 of saying that CON introduced a distinction which was not present in my resolution was to again repeat my argument distinctly in juxtaposition to a claim which is certainly not my own. (5.) With no need to recapitulate my position, there is need (1a.) for CON to clarify why the learning in question must be of the sort which gives someone something they can "walk away with;" continuing clarification, (1b.) why are maxims necessary for ethical development; (1c.) why aren't maxims too easy to learn thus relegating them subordinate to the priority a more necessary project which cannot cease (for it is all too easy to tell a child a little maxim to regulate his behavior) because a life time of experience is necessary for proper character, attunement and distinction in feeling to operate as a wholly ethical individual because they can simply seek the good too easily with the proper character granting them the fitting response to a situation; also, (1c.) CON needs to explain the relevance of problems like the sort in his second bulletin concerning "grown up problems" to the project of ethical development—I'm unsure as to why his ridiculous example of being a Hokies booster has anything moral or ethical about it and isn't just a silly attempt to use an example of guilt and pass it off as something substantially moral or ethical. In addition, there is a need (2.) for CON to explain why the project of continuing ethical development in adulthood has anything to do with any of the absurd rhetorical (and weak) questions he utilized at the end of his last post where he claims that for some reason an instance where someone commits a crime entails the explanation of the crime (which you will see CON coyly makes an explanation due my resolution to continue ethical development into adulthood—the problem is that HE ASSUMES THAT CONTINUING THE PROJECT OF ETHICAL DEVELOPMENT INTO ADULTHOOD ENTAILS THAT ONE CANNOT MAKE "MORAL CHOICES," a term, i.e., "moral choice," which I have not used myself) in terms of poor development—why does CON assume that continuing the project of ethical development is a problem for those unfortunate enough to commit crime?—Why doesn't CON assume that continuing the project of ethical development is so virtuous that it reaps rewards for those who already make great "moral choices?"