Without God there can be no absolute morals.

If my opponent and I disagree on a central meaning of the resolution, then I am unsure how far we can progress in this debate. The resolution "Without God there can be no absolute morals" is equivalent to 'with God there are absolute morals' and thus 'God is the source of absolute morality.' In order to disprove this resolution, I either have to prove that A) there are absolute morals without God, or B) There are also no absolute morals with God (that is, God is not the source of absolute morality). All of my arguments have been geared toward point B which is, as the resolution is written, a fundamental aspect of said resolution. This may be a semantics issue, but it is a major one, and the fault of it lies with my opponent. If my opponent reuses this debate in the future, I recommend 'God' to be dropped from the resolution to supply my opponent's atheistic perspective. Furthermore, I urge the voters to note that my opponent made no reference to God in his first argument save for one hypothetical, "If there is no God...then the only person you can really know is yourself" and thus I had no option but to further my understanding of the resolution. 1. My opponent appears to argue that if a decision benefits yourself in any way, it falls under egoism. This is false. I have already established the differences between egoism and utilitarianism. 2/3. Then why support egoism at all? Why champion it as though it were absolute without God? Why argue any specific morality if you argue that all are relative without God? 4. My opponent has altered his argument from 'people do not exist' to "people are objects to you." This is a significant concession on his part. My opponent argues that one cannot "feel another person's emotions or think their thoughts." Through common experiences they certainly can - and even without them. This is called empathy. Merriam-Webster defines empathy as "the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions; the ability to share someone else's feelings" [1]. This in itself strikes a blow to egoism - you do not feel empathy for objects but for people. Thus they exist. Thus you know they exist. Thus you have been taken out of yourself and into a sense where other people matter. 5. Refer to my opening paragraph. 6. I am putting in quotations because not to do so is plagiarism. Those words were not mine. Additionally, if the lives of humans depend on each other - something my opponent does not contest - then you do have an absolute duty to them. 7. I agree to retract this point, as it has little relevance to the debate, if my opponent likewise agrees. 8. Nonexistence does not mean they have no thought. Nonexistence means they do not exist. To say a rock does not exist because it does not think is absurd. On feeling their emotions, I refer my opponent back to empathy. The rest of this paragraph can be referred to my opening paragraph. I will add that my opponent does not have to defend the existence of God. I am not arguing whether or not He exists. 9. Again, why can a human conceive what a God might think but not another human? 10. My opponent states that "if you get off scot free then you may as well buy the cheaper shoes." If we extend this argument, numerous problems develop. If you can get away with murder scot free, should you murder? If a pedophile can molest a child and get away scot free, should he molest a child? I will even attempt to argue method A of disproving the resolution here. These are moral taboos not because society perceives them to be bad but because they violate the basic rights of another individual. It could be argued that anything that directly threatens the rights of an individual with no benefit outside of self-interest is always morally wrong. 11. False. If absolute morals can't exist even with a God, then God is not the source of absolute morality, and the resolution is proven false. Refer to my opening paragraph. 12. Refer to my opening paragraph. 13. I am not arguing that selfishness is morally right in an absolutist sense. 14. Power is not the sole factor in determining victory. And if we play along for a second and agree that people have to make their own choices - what about those incapable of making their own choices? What about children or the mentally handicapped? 15. I think we may conclude that we both retract the forced perspective argument due to its irrelevance to the debate. 16. Refer to point 15. 17. Certainly, humans have the liberty to deny looking outside of themselves. This does not negate the existence of an objective standpoint; it instead negates their willingness to participate in it. In the same way, if I choose not to attend a carnival, it does not mean the carnival does not exist, just that I have chosen not to go. 18. Science is (not typically) seen through the biased lens of emotion. I am exactly arguing for looking at something outside of my perspective. This is the only way to find an objective, absolute standpoint. If the universe could think, humans would mean nothing to it. Our lives would be but numbers. Furthermore, humans may reject scientific findings, but this does not negate them. Refer to point 17. 19. What does this have to do with the Tragedy of the Commons and the egotist? 20. The contradiction in your argument - that it concerns others and that others do not exit are your words - somehow prove the resolution? How can you use a faulty conclusion you made to support your standpoint? 21. That 21 is in the comments is not permitted within the course of a debate, and I do not have to respond to it. However, I shall, and I again point my opponent to my opening paragraph. Your resolution absolutely implies that God is the source of morality, and your entire first argument does nothing to divorce God from the resolution. Again, if my opponent wanted to debate within an atheistic framework, he should have excluded God from the resolution and noted something in his first arguments. I thank my opponent for a great debate thus far, and I look forward to the final round! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...