Resolved : A Christian God is necessary in order for objective morality to exist.

That is not a loss of conduct per pro, when he asserts that a certain group of people are unable to act *morally* because they are not of a certain religion. That is by definition indoctrination. The truth hurts sometimes, but saying someone is incapable of acting moral when they do not believe the same thing as you falls under that definition verbatim. Plus he is addressing morality, not objective morality which makes the position even more absurd. Con asserts that his contentions where not refuted, but he is also wrong. They were refuted through my contentions. Both his C1 and C2 which are referring to intentionality and morality in generally specifically address God as the only means by which morality can be gauged. You can even see this through his contentions when he states some of the following" In the atheistic paradigm, the only logical consequence is amorality, or moral relativism. The theistic paradigm supports an objective moral system, as the universe was created with intention. "This ties in with his first contention. Basically he is asserting that atheism via absence of God is only able to support subjective morality without no way to gauge a concept of objective morality. Through my contentions which he has failed to refute, I have given an alternative way by which morality can be gauge. Thus negating his contentions. In short he says morality can't exist without God, I show that it can. His arguments are refuted due to a bare assertion for God being the only gauge. It was pretty simple, and i'm sorry he missed that throughout the entire debate. Conclusion. There is no much left to say on this topic. I provided a standard by which morality can be gauged via what benefits society or intentional harm to others through util, and the veil of ignorance. My adversary fails to understand the idea in principle and has not even properly refuted one of the arguments. The veil removes subjective thought in the process via our own intentions, along with applying a greater good and what benefits society as a whole as the gauge. All of the arguments tie into each other as a way to establish a system for which an objective morality can be established. Note : Even if you disagree with the system I put forth , it is a system. I only had to show there was a way objective morality could be estbalish to negate pros contentions as he asserted anyone who lacks God lacks the ability to act morally. His assertion was there is no morality without God at all, thus God is the only measure and thus moraliy is objective. If i was able to show morality exists at all, his contention fails. Also if I was able to show there is a system where objecitve morality can be established his contention fails, and he does not hold up his BOP. I did both and they went no refuted. He was spouting around the word subjective ideas, without understanding what they veil of ignorance acts as. The aim toward a greater society via the veil and rawls experiment is a way by which you can gauge moral actions as all social constructs and personal ideologies are removed from the equation. Wrapping it upIn short, the debate turn out like this. Con makes 2 assertions which limit and restrict God as the only source of morality. He then states that without God morality cannot exist. I have refuted these contentions through my counter contentions. I have shown him that morality does exist without God, and that not just morality can exist but objective morality can exist as well. Both of which counter his initial arguments. He has failed to understand how my contentions offer an objective way to establish morality without God via util and what best benefits society, thus they go un refuted and in turn refute his contentions as well. As pro says, it was a poor debate. He failed to grasp anything I was saying and just merely asserted over and over again that morality itself cannot exist without God. This is a pretty clear decision.