Morality MUST be objective.

Following along with the theme of last round, I will stray from a categorized response to suit the fact that my opponent has opted to mention scattered points instead of responding to each one of my own. FIRST: My opponent suggests that because I "broke his argument down", it turns a valid argument into an invalid one. This is in reference to the following invalid argument that my opponent made: "Do YOU wish to exist in a reality where we do not KNOW that Mother Theresa's morality is ABOVE Adolf Hitler's? " My breakdown: 1. Mother Theresa's morality is above Adolf Hitler's 2. Kleptin's proposition entails that we do not KNOW this truth 3. The Audience has a choice whether or not to exist in the reality that #2 describes. And the logical fallacies: For #1, Begging the Question For #2, Strawman For #3, Argumentum Ad Populum My breakdiwn did nothing to alter the truth value of my opponent's argument, it's just that my opponent's argument was flawed to begin with, and my opponent opted to make false accusations instead of conceding his flaws. The fact that my opponent has not shown *how* he believes I have made his argument false by breaking it down shows that he is only using this as a distraction from the failure of his argument. SECOND: "This does NOT help his case ONE iota: Because EVEN IF we concede the point that Hitler's actions are as permissible or desirable as Mother Theresa's actions then we MAY NOT CALL IT MORALITY" This is a repetition of my opponent's previous flawed argument. In essence, my opponent is arguing that morality only exists the way *he* dictates it. My opponent continues to beg the question, assuming that there is an objective morality and that any deviation is then incorrect. However, I will address his concerns as best I can. My opponent is trying to say that subjective morality is not morality at all. On the contrary, everything that makes objective morality valid, also makes subjective morality valid. It doesn't matter whether morality is objective or subjective, since they would always involve a set of beliefs that guide actions. Whether or not they are objectively right has absolutely no bearing on how it impacts society. Subjective morality is regulated, so there would be no moral anarchy or chaos. It is just that my opponent does not understand morality as a mechanism, only "knows" in his gut that something is either right or wrong. This is not enough, because if we answer the question *why* something is right or wrong, we come up with subjective morality. THIRD: "If nothing is higher or lower than anything else (the rape of a child is not lower than the giving of flowers to a relative) then IN WHAT SENSE is there morality? SO, arguing that there is no morality because it cannot be shown that one persons actions are better than anothers PROVES that morality (If YOU, unlike Kleptin, agree it exists) MUST be objective. " My argument is making more appeals to emotion (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) instead of making valid arguments. As I have said very early on in my introduction, the logical nature of an argument can seem valid if we appeal to the superficial common sense. Of course my opponent wishes to word his invalid arguments in ways that appeal to the audience's emotions, but under even a small amount of scrutiny, we can see that my opponent is simply being misleading. The question my opponent poses is this: If there is no moral difference between the rape of a child and the giving of flowers, how can we say morality exists? The answer is that my opponent is making yet another strawman fallacy. I never said that there was no moral difference, nor did I say that any two acts are always equal in moral validity. I simply said that there was no OBJECTIVE scale. Subjective morality will draw clear lines in the sand, but they will vary from culture to culture. Hindus revere cows as sacred. Americans are known for their hamburgers. Both groups have clear distinctions on the morality of eating beef, but differ in that belief. Thus, I as an American can judge that anyone eating beef is performing a morally valid act, and that the act of eating meat is more justifiably moral than crossing the street against the light, for example. However, an observant Hindu would judge that eating beef is immoral and would judge the act of eating meat to be less moral than crossing the street against the light. My opponent argues that since we can tell the difference and pass judgment, objective morality must exist. However, he forgets that different people pass judgement differently, making this evidence for SUBJECTIVE morality. FOURTH: "Again, I simply implore YOU, (reader/voter) to ask yourself honestly, whether we can safely ASSUME some things? That some things are innately KNOWN; and that ONE of the things we can KNOW is that Mother Theresa's actions are infinitely HIGHER than Adolf Hitlers. IF you disagree with this statement I have already lost you and you MUST vote for Kleptin. IF you agree with this statement then I ask you: In which sense can something be above something else UNLESS there is an objective standard for it to be either closer to or further away from? " Again, another appeal to the "common sense". As I have stated in my introduction, there is a difference between something looking superficially correct and what is truly correct. My opponent knows that his argument is based on nothing but gut feelings, hunches, and personal opinion, mixed in with bad logic. This is why he is so adamant about having the audience ignore my critique in favor of having wool pulled over their eyes and blindly trusting in ignorant "common sense". FIFTH: "REMEMBER: We can only deconstruct reality SO far before we have NOTHING left: not even words or letters or sounds etc. . We have to KNOW that we can KNOW some things: Or we have to swallow the ridiculous post-modern mantra that 'we cannot know and there is no ultimate truth'. . BUT we must take THIS statement as true! It may be too late for Kleptin. . but you? " Nothing but fluff. Since when was reality deconstructed? This is obviously in reference to my "breaking down" his argument. A discussion on the fallacies of my opponent's argument has now been twisted to a discussion on reality and epistemology? Forget my opponent's appeals to common sense. Let me perform this one fallacy and you the audience, whether or not you see any rhyme or reason to my opponent's ridiculous arguments. I believe I have done more than enough to show just how ridiculous and logically flawed my opponent's arguments have been. My opponent has not addressed the near dozen logical fallacies he has committed in attempting to string together his argument. It is flawed, nonsensical, unjustified, unsupported, and amidst all the valid critiques I had of his argument, my opponent responded to one of them, and in a roundabout way leading to him conceding the point. In short, my opponent wasted three rounds saying too much and absolutely nothing, at the same time. Unlike my opponent, I will not ask you to vote on ignorance and gut feeling, but rather on logic and evidence. This is why I urge a CON vote.