The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist

I will cordon off the arguments into the areas my opponent argued in this round, with perhaps some more subsections in the longer material. DEFINITIONS On the definition debate, my opponent in the last round quoted me then posted one sentence. This sentence wasn't even a refutation, but a reminder. This reminder was that God is defined as "an existence that is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover". I agreed with this definition and provided a reasonable interpretation that narrowed the definition of God further so that it could be better worked with. It's hard to tell whether my opponent agrees with this or not, but I'll assume he does as he doesn't include any refutation or argument that is relative to this definition being my or his way. MORAL OBJECTIVISM VS MORAL ABSOLUTES My opponent, in this section, once again quotes me and posts a singular sentence in refutal. My opponent simply says that he didn't say what he said he did and that I shouldn't confuse moral absolutes with moral objectivism. I stated that my opponent presented a statement that said he agreed objective morality was a moral law always right or wrong in any situation. One of his statements in Round 1 is "Objective morality means a morality that exists independently of personal belief, that is to say things are right or wrong regardless if any person believes in them or not. " This statement clearly agrees with my statement about moral law right or wrong in every situation. It's intuitive that the actions I refer to are human actions, as there is no reason I would be talking about animal or alien actions. Secondly, my opponent tells me not to confuse moral absolutes with moral objectivism. However, we have no idea why that statement is relevant. I do realize that there is a difference, however there is no clear connection to my argument, because my opponent fails to provide one. There is no reason why that statement has any relevance whatsoever. My opponent is simply making an observation that he failed to make relevant to my arguments. Because he didn't do that, I have no idea how I can adequately refute it, because it's not an argument in the first place. My opponent wasn't at his 8,000 character limit, so there is no excuse as to why he couldn't have connected this statement to my arguments. CLOSING ARGUMENTS Here my opponent is arguing that I didn't sufficiently affirm the resolution. Here, I will both show how I did adequately refute the resolution and how my opponent failed to adequately oppose the resolution. If we remember to the first round my opponent stated that Pro will affirm the resolution and Con will oppose, implying reciprocal burdens of proof. First, my opponent presents some options as to the possibilities of existence involving God and objective morality. He stated that I must show the 4th option to be an IMPOSSIBILITY. I must show that it is IMPOSSIBLE that "If it is not the case God exists, then objective morality does exist. " This is the point where my opponent quotes me saying how my entire argument showing option 4 an impossibility was laid out in Round 2 under "ARGUMENT". First, I must note that the ARGUMENT section is NOT located in Round 2, but Round 1. This was my mistake. However, up to the point when I said that, I only had one section entitled ARGUMENT. Let's look at how my opponent refuted ARGUMENT. Looking to his response, he says we'll look to my Round 2 argument, but does not actually address the ARGUMENT section in Round 1 OR the argument in Round 2. He simply says that he has "went over this" already, when I have clearly shown in Rounds 2, 3, and now 4 that he has failed EVERY ROUND to refute that Round 1 argument entitled ARGUMENT. I would refer the voters back to Round 1 argument where I showed how it was an IMPOSSIBILITY that God could not exist while objective morality did. My opponent completely ignored this every single round. For the readers to find it, my argument started with the words: "My argument is not a particulary large one, and one that hopefully will seem rather intuitive. " My opponent didn't address this argument. Moving on, my opponent provides two more options as to possibilities of existence. 1) God exists, and thus objective morality does. 2) God does not exist, and thus objective morality does not exist. He then states there's a 3rd option I hadn't noticed: 3) God does not exist and objective morality does. He says that he can concede the first two, but that the 3rd option is still on table. I'd like to point out that there is a fourth option: 4) God exists and objective morality doesn't. Now do these "options" look familiar? If they do, it's because my opponent just mentioned them at the beginning of his "CLOSING ARGUMENTS" section. I've shown VERY CLEARLY how objective morality CAN'T exist without God. That God's existence is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for objective morality, and my opponent has simply ignored this. So as we see, I've clearly upheld my end of the resolution by affirming that the ONLY way objective morality can exist is if God exists, and that objective morality cannot exist without God. What about the opponent, though? Has he upheld the resolution? If we look to his rounds content, we'll see that much of what he said was reiterating me or refuting some part of one of my arguments. Never did he actually provide an argument that opposed the resolution, only arguments that opposed my arguments. As far as burden of proof goes, my opponent completely failed to uphold it. He presented no reason for us to believe that, without God, objective morality can exist. VOTERS 1) I have upheld my burden of proof. 2) My opponent did not uphold his burden of proof. 3) Many of my arguments, including my most important argument, went unrefuted. 4) My opponent had no arguments in opposition to the resolution. 5) My opponent continuously avoided an argument I constantly brought up, and never ended up refuting it. BETTER ARGUMENTS I should win the better arguments vote because I presented better arguments. The voters justify this statement. SOURCES Sources should go to me because I had the only source, brought up in the first round (Merriam-Webster). Some feel, however, that with a resolution like this sources don't matter. CONDUCT Conduct should go to me, simply because my opponent ignored an argument every round and even at the end of the debate never got to it. SPELLING/GRAMMAR I wasn't very focused on my opponent's grammar or spelling, so I have no opinion as to who the victor of this section should be. CLOSING REMARKS I thank my opponent for this debate, although I wish he would have argued all of my arguments and resulted in a better debate. I did learn some, though, from this debate, and that's all that really matter in the end. I look forward to the results. Thank you.