Secular Morality (Pro) vs. Reigious Morality (Con)

[Side note: Pro used "he" pronouns for me. I am a woman- please use "she" pronouns for me] If there are no objective ways to measure human behaviour, there are also no ways to measure human behaviour which are not from religious texts. Mathematically: X !E A => (X! B) !E A if BEX. If Pro meant that I must justify that religious texts are an objective way to measure human behaviour (as I have done, anyway), the wording should have been that "religious texts are the only way to measure human behaviour) (i.e. religious texts are a way to do so, and all other ways are not). There being nothing in the set X which meets criterion A also means that there is nothing "aside from" B (such that B is a subset of X) in set X which meets criterion A. Ambiguous wording traditionally counts in favour of whoever did not word such- in this case, in my favour. Therefore, if voters deem there to be no way to objectively measure human behaviour, they also deem there to be no way to objectively measure human behaviour outside of religious texts, and thus agree with my case. "My opponent never provided a definition of God that said he was perfect" See my R2 speech: "God is defined as being a perfect being" If Pro is demanding an external link for such a definition, here is one: "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." (See source 7) "why does that mean God is perfect? " God is axiomatically being defined as perfect, here. That which is God must be perfect. That which is not perfect is not God. A definition needed be justified as Pro suggests, as definitions are true a priori (see source 8). "This argument relies on the assumption that there is already an objective moral system that exists outside of God, which God is merely expressing to us and did not concoct himself- which means it doesn't require a deity to be true" This is not true; God is (axiomatically defined as) the creator of all things, including morality. Thus, he is perfect by the objective moral standard which he created- just as he created light, sound etc. as objective quantities. "God is going off of his own Secular Moral Code since he doesn't believe in a creator that created him!" God is omnipotent- he exists beyond our universe. There's no reason to think he should have to obey causality, and therefore there's no reason to think he was created. "Kantianism is not even applicable nor sensical, nor is it founded upon first principles that are rational to assume." It is no more "rational" to assume the premises of libertarianism or liberalism than it is to assume the premises of Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or any other secular moral system- they are all *subjective* because they are based on arbitrary premises which are chosen only because they lead to consistent (though equally arbitrary) conclusions. As I said before, the best secular morality can do is produce consistent- but arbitrary and subjective- moral codes. Objective morality can only come from a being whose ideas are objectively true- from God. "You ARE you, so how can you NOT own yourself? " How does Pro justify the idea that being someone gives that person ownership of themselves? For centuries, humans thought it was perfectly acceptable to own another person, and their ways of thinking- though horrible- are just as valid as yours under a subjective secular morality. For that matter, how does Pro justify ownership even as a concept without appealing to other arbitrary moral standards or to a deity? Even if Pro can justify ownership under a secular morality, how can they then justify the idea that simply being entitles one to ownership of oneself? (While I'd agree that everyone does own themselves, I'd disagree that this can be justified without either recognising that it's an arbitrary claim, or appealing to a deity). The premise Pro used to justify the moral code they outlined is arbitrary. It is not "based on logic" as they described, but simply an emotional claim. Hence, it is fundamentally incompatible with their own definition of "Objective". Conclusion: 1) Pro has arbitrarily chosen a premise to start off with, and deduced a consistent- but equally arbitrary- moral code from there. This premise comes from nothing more than an emotional declaration- it is, by definition, not objective. 2) There is no reason to take the moral code outlined by Pro over Kantianism, Utilitarianism, or any other secular moral system- they are all subjective and arbitrary. 3) If you agree that all morality is subjective, you agree that "there is no objective way to measure human behavior aside from a religious text. " because of the mathematical logic I outlined earlier in this speech, and the wording of the claim (none of it actually requires religious texts to produce an objective moral code- only that there are no objective ways to measure human behaviour which do not come from religion). 4) God is axiomatically declared as perfect. Thus, he is perfectly moral. Thus, if an action is consistent with God's desires, it is objectively moral, and if it is not, it is objectively not moral. 5) Therefore, objective morality- if it exists- can only come from God. If objective morality does not exist, my case also holds true- there are still no objective ways to measure human behaviour outside of religious texts. It is for these reasons that I urge you to vote in my favour- I feel my case has been more thorough, more convincing, and reliably sourced from external references. None of these can be said of Pro's case. Sources: [7]: http://www.yourdictionary.com... [8]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...