Resolve: Arguments involving morals standards are weak and/or useless - take 2

I'm going to start out with a refutation of my opponent's counter analysis of the word ; Opinion. An expert is defined as ; adept: having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude. [1] Technically, anyone who THINKS and has KNOWLEDGE can form an opinion ; my opponent is entitled to an opinion because he has knowledge, and he has a right to opinion of morals, because he has some knowledge of it. Anyone who has thought of morals, can have them. I'm going to rebut my opponent's R2 in order that he listed. 1. Morals can't be used to argue. This is the clearest statement my opponent made. However, his only argument is, "Morals are subjective ; therefore, they can't be used in a debate." This clearly inaccurate. Abraham Lincoln held many debates when he first ran for president, against Stephen Douglas. [2][3] These debates were, for the most part, about the issue of slavery. Abraham Lincoln argued in favor of abolition ; the banning and removal of slavery. His opponent, Stephen Douglas, argued in favor of popular sovereignty, that being that each state should be allowed to choose. These issues were heavily debated at each stop on their trail. It was an argument of morality ; is it right to own slaves? Both sides inevitably included morals. While their intentions were different then than they were now, it leads to the question ; why was it an issue at all? Because people realized that morals were vital ; and that this was a moral issue. Is it moral to own another human being? The moral debate was settled ; it was immoral to own slaves, as settled by the US constitution, amendments 13, 14, and 15.[4] What does this point have to do with morals? Without a moral guidance, this issue would have been a non-issue. However, morals matter, and ultimately, they matter more than any law can. Whether everyone agreed or not, what mattered was upholding a foundation of morality, "We hold these truths to be self-evident ; that all men are created equal..." 2. Morals are mandatory for motive Without morals, there would not be motive ; without motive, we wouldn't act. All my opponent seems to say is, "It's weak because I said so, and because it's subjective." Which leads me on to the next point. Morals ARE subjective. New moral theories come, and some die out. However, morals are more advanced than we think ; from the simple idea of equality, we can establish eating animals is immoral ; because it's treating animals unequally. This is why morals are SO important in debate ; without morals in debate, and without debating morals, nothing could be established as 'good' or 'bad'. So while yes, everyone has different morals, everyone knows in themselves which morals they support, and on what basis. By using morals in a debate, you are establishing something beyond efficiency ; you are establishing yourself as human, and through morals, you can establish what is the best way to live, run a society, etc. Morals WILL differ ; but the strongest morals will rise to the top, and these will be the morals supported. Without morals, anything can be justified through efficiency. Murder, rape, stealing, all for the sake of making your own life easier. The judges will see this, that morals are necessary in order to properly hold any form of argumentation ; every law, action, and policy is linked to moral ideas. I acknowledge that most Germans did NOT support Hitler ; and hence his morals did NOT become the norm. We must first kritik the basic idea of the purpose of morals ; Morals are an action set in place based on 'good' and 'bad', through the use of standards, such as equality, fairness, societal good, etc. These are necessary in order to understand why we do anything, or why we establish laws, policies, etc. This is vital to know ; we here are arguing an abstract without an application ; I've shown why it is applicable to every situation to have some form of moral motive for your actions. Morals are not only useful, but inevitable AND vital for our lives ; in a debate, they are a standard of what is good and bad. The reason moral philosophy exists, is to establish reasons behind morals. Without a moral basis for our actions, we would lack motive ; without a motive, we do not act ; without acting, we do not live. Dropped arguments _________________ Impact of Life Refinement of Morals Moral Incentives In addition, my opponent failed to refute my arguments, which negated his own ; he is left without a valid argument. Merely saying something is subjective is not reason enough to discredit it ; our own existence can be considered subjective. Because my arguments went through untouched, they flow on into the 3rd round. I end with a quote about the legal practicality of morality, and how surely vital it is ; "Because just as good morals, if they are to be maintained, have need of the laws, so the laws, if they are to be observed, have need of good morals" - Niccolo Machiavelli [1]adept: having or showing knowledge and skill and aptitude [2]http://www.illinoiscivilwar.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://www.usconstitution.net...