All Morals are Relative

My opponent, throughout this debate, has made a great number of claims and has supported very few. To that end I will show that his arguments, and in fact his very premise, are logically flawed. --Definitions-- My opponent has a misunderstanding of the word that I defined. I did not define morality, I defined moral. If my opponent had properly quoted my definitions, he would already have seen his rejection of my definitions to be invalid. Moral: Relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave [1] Based on what somebody's conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done [1] Regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just [1] Giving guidance on how to behave decently and honorably [1] Good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large [1] Able to distinguish right from wrong and to make decisions based on that knowledge [1] Based on an inner conviction, in the absence of physical proof [1] Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior [2] Expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior [2] Conforming to a standard of right behavior [2] Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical [3] Expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing [3] Founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom [3] All of these definitions are properly cited definitions. Regardless of the points my opponent has brought up regarding my definitions, his very arguments are in direct conflict with the very definition of moral. A moral, by definition and necessity, is relative. If my opponent feels that my definitions are flawed, he may freely choose any of the other 11, and the case remains the same. My argument does not fail simply because my opponent disagrees with it. This disqualifies any objections my opponent has brought forth based upon definitions, thus I proceed to the next point. --Clarification Rebuttal-- I provided to my opponent the two ways he can win this debate. Either he proves that morals are not relative because I have not shown them to be relative, or that his moral(s) is/are absolute. In order to show that something is in fact absolute, he must prove it to be. To prove a rule to be absolute in math, one must demonstrate that is applies to all situation involving that rule. The Pythagorean Theorem states that in all right triangles, a^2+b^2=c^2. This theorem was proven to be true through a proof. In essence, in every right triangle throughout time and history, the Pythagorean Theorem proves that a^2+b^2=c^2 without exception. For a moral to be proven to be an absolute moral, it must also be "universal," in that it applies to every situation that the rule seeks to cover. As my opponent's rule applies to morals, he must show it to be a constant in all moral decisions throughout history without exception. It cannot simply be viewed independently of personal bias; it must also be proven to always have applied and always to apply. In regards to my statement, my opponent stated, "This statement only holds if the standards my opponent standards are indeed applicable to the definitions provided." My opponent has brought forward no contest stating that my standards do not apply to my definition(s), therefore the statement is true. --Rights vs. Morals-- My opponent has decided not to contest the UN's ability to determine what a right is, therefore he concedes the point. Based upon that concession, my next statement is a simple proof. The definition of a right, as I have stated, is "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature." The definition(s) of moral are above in my first point. It is obvious that the definition of a right and the definition of a moral are different. Therefore, because my opponent has not contested that the UN has the power to declare something to be a right, because the UN has declared self-governance to be a human right, and because the definitions of rights and morals are different, my opponents so called moral is not a moral at all. Furthermore, in my opponent's derivation, he states several times that his "moral" is a right. Again, by definitions, morals and rights are different and therefore he has shown his own "moral" to actually be a right. --Limitations-- Without getting into an abortion debate, a fetus is genetically human; therefore it is entitled to human rights. As shown before, self-determinacy is a human right. Due to the fact that it is a human right, the fetus and the mother both have the same right. By this, the mother and the fetus are in direct conflict in terms of rights, thus my opponent's "absolute moral" does not apply to all moral dilemmas. --Derivation-- "My opponent claims that I have not presented a derivation. I would like to direct him to the first round." Once again my opponent has misrepresented my arguments. Unfounded claims do not support an argument. If my opponent were to look back at the previous round, he would realize this error. To the derivation itself, in essence, the derivation is as follows: "Happiness is reward for completion of one's priorities. Pain is the opposite. These in junction form will. A person has the ability to act upon his natural priorities. When the person fulfils more urgent needs, he/she receives more happiness. A person uses his/her means to accomplish these ends. Based upon biology, a person has the right to govern themselves and their property. If a person violates a person's right to themselves and their property, they are in the wrong by either biology or happiness. Due to this, any action that violated self-governance is immoral." I object to the utilitarian argument on two fronts. One, happiness does not justify all actions, as demonstrated by everyday societal norms. Two, despite that, this argument is over moral relativity. Therefore you cannot submit a moral position as an argument. As for the rest of the derivation, it is a simple logical flow. If A=B, and if B=C, A=C. This statement is only true if both of the premises are true. If you start with a flawed premise, you arrive at a flawed conclusion. In this case, my opponent's derivation is a proof that a violation to self-governance is immoral. I have already shown that self-governance is not a moral; therefore that derivation is logically flawed. --Contradictions-- My opponent is right, I did contradict my point. I made a moral claim, which is therefore invalid. Despite that, my opponent misquoted me, which is improper in any debate. --Moral Evolution-- My opponent does not challenge that morals do evolve with time. As shown, my opponent must show his moral to be constant throughout time, and he has not. Therefore his rebuttal here is flawed. Once again, my opponent has misrepresented my arguments. I redirect my opponent to my second round where I do in fact contest that very point. --Human Knowledge-- My definition is in fact sourced, and I provided several more definitions. Therefore, as this was my opponent's only contest to this argument, this argument is valid. --Conclusion-- By simple definitions, all morals are by necessity relative. By standard of proof, my opponent cannot show that any moral is absolute. Due to this, the resolution is affirmed. [1] http://encarta.msn.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...