Morality is subjective

I would like to begin by saying that my definition is not biased, it is based on the accepted definition of morality by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, containing the results of the conclusions of great thinkers throughout history. My opponent's definition has no source, no support, and no rationalization.Even beyond that, my opponent fails to show why my definition is inferior. For example, my opponent claims that "rational" could mean anything. However, this is absurd. No one claims that rationality means believing that the Earth is flat. The definition of rationality is the exercise of practical reason, which is:"the general human capacity for resolving, through reflection, the question of what one is to do" [3]My opponent has summarized their arguments from the previous round and done themselves a disservice in the process, as they have uncovered a glaring contradiction in their own reasoning."changing the morals on which these views are based on is not rational""some morals must remain for a society to remain intact, not all morals"First my opponent states that morals must not be changed. Then they state that some morals must be changed. Given that changing morals fits in the very definition of subjectivity, I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and follow the former statement. I should also note that only three sentences before, my opponent claimed that the word "rational" could mean anything. Then they used it as though it had a concise definition in the first bit I quoted. This is another glaring inconsistency in my opponent's arguments.Defense of Contention One:In my opponent's second sentence of their rebuttal, they actually conceded the entire contention to me."My opponent is essentially saying that there is a separation between knowledge and morals. This is true."Given a gap between knowledge and morality, it is impossible to have objective truth about morality. Thus the resolution is upheld. However, my opponent then contradicts themself for a third time by claiming that there is not a gap between knowledge and morality.My opponent then applies scientific idealism, the process of claiming that no matter how impossible something may seem, because things in the past seemed impossible that we now know aren't, that there might someday be a way to make what we believe to be impossible possible. Unfortunately, this process is not employed by scientists or philosophers because it is simply misleading. While the basic premise is true, that the seemingly impossible has before been made possible, the reverse is also true, that the seemingly possible has been shown to be impossible.As an example, here is a list of techniques thought to work but proven not to.HomeopathyPhrenologyPalm-readingWitchcraftPsychic ReadingsAdditionally, my opponent does not seem to understand the difference between practical limitations and logical impossibilities. For the former, a task may be impossible due only to limited resources, knowledge, or environmental complications. Logical impossibilities are on a different realm. For example, a statement can never be true and false at the same time. You will never have a case where A, A->B, and ~B are all true at the same time. No matter the scientific advancement, logical tenets are insurmountable. Hume's Is/Ought gap is just another example of such a tenet.My opponent then claims that we cannot see or measure religion, but we still have knowledge about it, therefore we can have knowledge about unseeable phenomena. This is flawed on many levels. Religion as a concept can be observed through its influence on people who follow it, and can be measured via time spent in devotion and religious population levels. Morality has no such gauge. But even if the religion example was a good example, my opponent would then have to show that it applied to morality as well, which would require extensive cross-analysis. My opponent has done no such analysis.My opponent then brings up the example of law codes, which is completely unsalient and serves no purpose. Established laws are not the same as religion. I will also mention that Hammurabi's code punished hitting your father by cutting off the hand you hit him with, which is certainly not enforced today.The final sentence in my opponent's rebuttal is a contradiction in an of itself.Defense of Contention TwoMy opponent's only real point here is that they have stated before that opinions can change. However, simply stating this does not make it true. If beliefs on morality can change, then morality is by definition subjective. The point on Hammurabi's code is again not germane. I would leave a lengthier defense, but my opponent has left me with very llttle to defend against.Defense of RebuttalMy opponent has essentially restated their earlier arguments, which I addressed in my first rebuttal. To reiterate, saying that society would be better with a belief in objective morality depends on a definition of better, which depends on a definition of morality, making this argument circular.Additionally, the truth of statements is not determined by whether or not society is better off believing in them.Law codes are not the same as moral codes. Objective morality requires unilateral acceptance, but law codes are not unilaterally accepted as moral. If they were, they would never change, making them objective, which they are not. Additionally, laws are made by humands whose opinions change overtime, making law codes subjective to another degree as well.In summary, my opponent's arguments have all either been naive, irrelevant, circular, or inconsistent.Vote Pro.[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...