Euthyphro's dilemma is a false dilemma.

My opponent may not think his arguments are irrelevant, but anyone with a clue of what Euthyphro's dilemma is about will know just how wrong he is. He takes a few phrases out of my arguments and "refutes" them out of context. I said that even if morality is arbitrary by God's commands, it doesn't matter IN CONTEXT OF THE EUTHYPHRO'S DILEMMA. The dilemma is presented as a problem for theists, that either morality doesn't need a god or that it is arbitrary and can be changed anytime by a God. I argue that even if morality is arbitrary to God's will, this ISN'T a problem for theists and thus NO DILEMMA. This is the essence of my argument and it hasn't even been TOUCHED upon by my opponent's argument. "This is common sense, please get some. " --- > On the contrary… I will now just go through his VERY irrelevant arguments: =====Counterarguments===== >>>Majority of Christians and what they believe in<<< This argument is completely irrelevant. I stated it doesn't matter if morality is arbitrary by God's will IN THE CONTEXT of the dilemma. Of course the moral commandments by God are important to his followers, I have never argued this. Since my sole argument is still standing, I have no reason to say anything more on this matter. >>>God's omnibenevolence<<< In my opening argument of Round 1, I STATED THE DEFINITIONS OF GOD. I also further stated that this ISN'T a debate of whether or not God exists. Instead, it is a debate of: "If God has X definitions (ones that I have listed), then there is a dilemma in terms of morality". I, of course, argue against this (Euthyphro's dilemma). Even if you had a problem with the definitions, then you should have CHALLGEND THEM IN ROUND 1. By not, you have conceded that all my definitions are in accord with you. Thus, in this debate God, IS omnibenevolent. >>>The first Horn of Euthyphro's dilemma<<< "How are we to know that God ALREADY knows what is moral or what is not moral? " ---- > Well if you read the definitions, then God is OMNISCIENCT. He knows EVERYTHING. My opponent's "argument" concerning the first horn is completely irrelevant. The first horn of the dilemma was meant to show that if God commands what is moral BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY moral, then there is no need for God. Basically, it states God is a middleman. Apparently, my opponent has no clue about this. >>>The second Horn of Euthyphro's dilemma<<< "Just because one figure of power says one thing, does this mean that it is always right? " ---- > Well if GOD, an OMNIPOTENT AND OMNIBENEVOLENT BEING, makes something right, then I argue it IS right. This is perhaps the only line you have that is on the right path. However, you fail to even develop it, and so I have nothing to refute. "We must first find reason to believe that he his commandments of morality are in fact true and real. " ---- > God can do anything, he can make anything real (for some, they say only in the boundaries of logic, but whatever let's not get into that). =====Conclusion===== "I argue that God is not a completey omnibenevolent figure and there is NO PROOF TO PROVE SO. " ---- > As I have stated in the first Round, this is NOT a debate on God's existence or his properties. YOU have said nothing in your first Round, therefore you CONCEDE ALL DEFINTIIONS STATED. Not only are you irrelevant, you fail to even understand simple things like definitions and rules. Voters, if I haven't demonstrated enough by now, my opponent's argument are complete red herrings. He has YET to touch upon my single argument, that the second horn of the dilemma is a false dilemma because God is omnibenevolent. Since my opponent has no real argument to present, I can't refute anything.