The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist

I thank Con for their reply and clarification, and I'll now offer my own. RESOLUTION INTERPRETATION As my opponent pointed out, there was a slight issue with how I interpreted the resolution, one that my opponent quickly corrected. My opponent stated that a better resolutional wording would be "IF objective morality exists, then God exists." This, however, is actually not what the resolution states. The resolution's wording says that there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist. In other words, IF there is a God, then objective morality exists and IF there isn't a God, then objective morality doesn't exist. [ (G->M) ^ (~G->~M) ] where G is "there is God" and M is "objective morality exists". With that, we see I have to logical "pillars" to hold up, one of which at least my opponent must tear down in order to win, and also that his proposed resolution in his last round is invalid. Furthermore, my opponent makes the statement in his opening argument that says "It is possible that if God doesn't exist, then objective morality does. This can be represented as (~G->P) where G is "there is God" and P is "objective morality could exist". I will move on to each of these three "pillars" and either fortify or refute them. *(G ---> M) If there is God, then objective morality exists.* The God that the opponent describes has the characteristics of the Christian god. Because of this, and also because he uses the capitalized version of the word god which generally applies to the Christian god, I'll be using the Christian god as the god that is in this logical pillar. According to the Bible, which is true if the Christian god is real, God says that there are things that are objectively right or wrong. This is a clear system of objective morality, as certain actions are deemed objectively wrong/right within. Because of this, if there is God, then it logically follows that objective morality would exist, because objective morality is an inherent characteristic of the God that's in the Christian bible. *(~G ---> ~M) If it is not the case that there is God, then it is not the case that there is objective morality* Here I must prove how objective morality can't exist if God doesn't exist. If you will refer to my very first argument, you will see that I have already done this. If you'll look at my opponent's response, you'll see that he failed to refute or even mention these arguments. While I didn't understand my opponent's intention with the resolution, my arguments still apply we see now, because my arguments still uphold this pillar of the resolution without breaking the resolution's context. Until my opponent refutes these arguments, then both of my pillars still stand. This argument also applies to my opponent's pillar that he must uphold. I will address that now. *Opponent's pillar: (~G ---> P) If it is not the case that there is God, then objective morality could exist.* If we look at my argument that I presented last round that my opponent did not refute, we see that it also refutes this pillar that my opponent must uphold. I've shown that (~G --->~P), or in words that If it is not the case that there is God, then it is not the case that objective morality could exist. In other words, If God doesn't exist, neither does objective morality. I clearly showed in my last round that it was not possible that objective morality could exist without God in my last speech because of internal inconsistencies within the concept. My opponent failed to address it, and because of that, it remains standing. CONCLUSION I apologize for my short response, but I didn't have much to cover seeing as my opponent did not address my argument, but only my resolution interpretation. In this round I've done the following: A) Rejected my opponent's suggested resolution (that was mentioned in Round 2) on the grounds that it did not comply with the original resolution. B) Converted the original resolution into symbolic logic for more clarity. C) Clearly defined each of the competitors' burdens of proof, and called them logical "pillars" that each must uphold. D) Showed that my opponent failed to address my argument, and that my argument upheld my 2nd pillar and refuted his only pillar. E) Presented an argument that upheld my first pillar. I look forward to my opponent's response and I look forward to debating in Round 3.