Morals are objective.

http://www.youtube.com... Yes, I know it was a typo, that's what we rednecks make sometimes. I don't know how my opponent thought I was implying anything about his grammar with the spell check comment. He poked at my spelling by saying English wasn't my first language, So I admitted that I spell like a redneck and tried to give you all the warning who have similar difficulties in making yourself care enough to English the proper way, spell check will not hide that as it has failed to hide it for me. To quote Foxworthy (video 5:50) you cant poke at rednecks unless you are one and ‘I are one'. So I am allowed to correct my opponent when he said ‘people from the south don't talk like stereotypical rednecks' yes they do, I live here and can assure you all that's exactly how we talk. So anyway, please have mercy with the spelling and grammar vote, my point was he made mistakes too, like me, doesn't that justify a tie? On to arguing for the point that matters, the argument point. As I predicted my opponent closed still defending ‘situational' morality as incompatible with objective morality. To do so he has tried two things 1)Make you believe he defined objective at the start of this debate as ‘regardless of the situation' by putting it in capital letters. 2)Argue that the Objective morality I describe is infinitely complex and therefore unreasonable for people to know. 1) is simply false. Scroll up for yourself to the top of this debate and you find where he defined objective. Objective - absolute (ie killing is ALWAYS wrong) Now, I have been capitalizing ALWAYS every time I used it last round (& shall continue to this final round) to further draw attention to this fact. Since my opponent didn't include ‘regardless of the situation' in that definition, if it can be said to account for the situation while remaining possible in some context to say its ALWAYS wrong or right then for this debate it can be said to be objective. Now either wording of the definition (ALWAYS or regardless of the situation) is incorrect. We are already giving him leeway over that, can he really expect us to give him anymore to change ALWAYS to mean regardless of the situation? The main difficulty with 2) is that it forgets how we actually practice ‘doing the right thing'. It doesn't matter if it is infinitely complex it wouldn't matter. That would only mean we will likely never be able to write the code of decent behavior in accurate legalistic terms for ourselves. The actual practice has always been ‘listening to your gut.' It can have an infinitely complex method for determining morality and you not need to know it, just know how to listen. You never think through ‘is murder wrong' you simply ‘know' it is. Even ignoring this though, I didn't describe objective morality as infinitely complex, and I don't see how my opponent could. I said the addition of considering the situation would make it more complex, so if it's that addition that makes the law of morality infinitely complex then so is ‘situation' morality. Situation morality brought complexity to the table, so if that complexity negates it for the reasons Con gave then the kind of Objective morality he has been arguing against would be the preferable one wouldn't it, as its simple enough to not consider the situation. When I said ‘third option' that was regarding bringing "‘murder is wrong' as opposed to ‘killing is wrong'" to the table of this debate. You did provide rebuttal to it so don't worry, it appears you understood it fine. Well, almost fine anyway; you missed the point of the argument. To refute ‘murder is always wrong' my opponent gave this set of choices. A) Kill an innocent man. B) Every woman will die. I could give the exact same two options and it would equally refute ‘lying is always wrong' Doing A or B does not provide you an opportunity to lie, and it also doesn't for murder. It gives a choice for a just ‘killing' but not murder because murder indicates a particular intent of heart. Killing the innocent man with this intent of heart would indicate you are ‘sacrificing' him, not murdering. You can only have a scenario where it wrong to kill to create the circumstances that say the intent of heart made the killing murder. Some intents of killing can make it sacrifice, some desire for victory, some self-preservation. The fact that the man in option A is innocent changes none of this thus non-sequential http://en.wikipedia.org.... The only person who should leave that scenario with a guilty conscious is the mad scientist that had you kill him or he would unleash his woman killing virus on the world. So you see even that extreme situation failed to make the act truly ‘murder.' I know my opponent doesn't support chaotic morality, but to present a pro to 'Objective' as Con defined it round one, I need to address the only thing that by definition cannot be 'Objective' as defined round one and that would be chaotic morality, which is the same as no morality. So any case to show their is morality at all would be Pro 'Objective' as objective was defined round one by Con. So in order to give a Pro for 'Objective' as defined round I had to bring it up. The fact that Con chooses to agree with the statement 'morality' exist is his prerogative but for this debate it should be considered that the point remains uncontested. So if you are a moral nihilist, even though you may think my case for morality stinks, the case is an uncontested one in this debate and you should vote accordingly. The only point that Con has contested is that Situation morality cannot be encompassed by Objective morality and must be considered a completely different standard. As Con defined 'objective' round one, I have contended it can be included, Con has contended it cant. So in summery: 1) We both made some typing errors, please vote tie on that. 2) Putting REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATION in capital letters doesn't change the fact that that is not what he put for "objective's" definition Round 1. 3) Put in the same situation twice, you'll find the moral thing to do is ALWAYS the same, witch was what Con put in round 1 as objectives definition. so in some legalistic sense you can still call 'situation' morality an objective one. The 2 are not exclusive to each other. 4) If the objective morality I describe is 'infinitely' complex then so is situation morality because the factor that changed the conception of objective morality from simple to complex was the inclusion of 'situation' morality. 5) Granted 4) is the case then it is 'situation' morality that is too complex and an 'objective' one that excludes it that is reasonable for people to know. 6) Even if the rules of morality were infinity complex, the art of complying with would not be more complex than 'listing to your gut' 7) Even the most extreme ridiculous scenario (as Con has just proved) could not changed the intent of killing in murder to a just one, as it will always provide another intent on it's own. 8) The morality of the physical act may change with situation but the morality of the intent never does. Those are the 8 things I needed to say this round, and it is where we are left standing after considering all that was brought up in THIS DEBATE and NOT OTHERS. Moral nihilist please try to keep that in mind when you vote. It's not like Con has been arguing your case either, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to resist vote bombing.