Morality is subjective.

Burden of Proof: The burden of proof hasn't been discussed in this debate. Since objective or subjective morality isn't an established norm, the person asserting something - by default - has the burden of proof. Since no burden of proof has been established in this debate, by default Pro has the burden of proof to prove that all morality is subjective. He has agreed that no objective morality exists. Therefore, he argues that all morality must be subjective. It is his burden of proof to show that NO objective morality exists. He argues that since no evidence of objective morality has been provided, that it must not exist. Around 1:15:00 in this debate with Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens (a leading atheist and proponent of subjective morality) admits that no society has ever accepted murder or rape against someone's will in the history of human existence. Since Christopher Hitchens has been published in peer reviewed journals, his assertions should have merit. Also it is explanatorily superior to asset that humans have a sense of objective morality. Empirically, no society has ever accepted rape against someone's will as lawful or murder for the sake of pleasure as lawful. Intuitively, we know that rape against one's will and murder for our own pleasure is wrong. Logically, it is explanatorily superior to assert that these moral abominations are wrong objectively. Why objectivlely? Because absolute rather than relative morality has been shown to be true regardless of religion, culture, or time period of within human existence. According to Occam's razor, we should assume the simplest explanation that meets the data, which weighs in favor of objective morality. In addition, I will reiterate an analogy that i've given in the previous round. Humans have morals, and have the capacity to see murder and rape against someone's will as right if morals are relative. Dogs have vocal chords, and have the capacity to speak english just like humans have the capacity to disobey objective morality since dogs harbor the resource necessary to do so, but empirically, dogs have never been verified to do an action like speak english because it's incoherent. It is also incoherent to believe that morals are subjective in the sense that any society would ever condone rape against someone's will or murder as being morally justified behavior. If you assert that humans, as a product of random and spontaneous causation, have an obligation to propagate the evolutionary process and dervive morality from this purpose, you must ask yourself how a purpose can exist among a purposeless species. It is logically incoherent. "Not everyone gets pleasure from murdering someone" It doesn't matter if it's one person or a billion people. What matters is whether or not they are morally justified in receiving pleasure from murder. My case is that murder for the sake of pleasure or rape against someone's will is always wrong, even if it's one case! Taking a relativistic position on morality, Murder for the sake of pleasure or rape against someone's will is NOT WRONG OBJECTIVELY! Meaning that you have NO moral authority to assume that the behavior of the Nazi's or Ted Bundy killing others for the sake of some cause was wrong. You must agree that if morals are relativistic, no absolutes exist and that they are just as justified in killing and raping as justification for seeing that behavior as wrong. With the view of objective morality, that is empirically, logically, and intuitvely supported, actions destroying other human's well-being (like murder for the sake of pleasure of rape against someone's will) is wrong indefinitely and objects to the assertion that all morality is subjective (which you assert without proof despite having the burden of proof). My opponent attempts to debunk Ted Bundy's previous statement by re-asserting Ted's previous statements (that he murdered for pleasure in the same way he derives pleasure from eating ham). My opponent also re-asserts that Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer showing remorse was only in the interest of appeasing the public eye. I will reiterate my stance that I've provided in the previous round: Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer have no reason whatsoever to allign their moral values with God's moral values or public moral values if they are about to be exterminated the next day. If their true motivation behind committing evil can't be known, moments before their death should hold more merit instead of years before execution because they'd have no opportunity to appeal or lessen their sentence. My opponent never rebuts this point. My opponent commits an oxymoron by stating: "The aztecs did not justify anything. Appeasing gods was the reason for which they killed. " The justification for killing in the first place was because they were trying to appease false gods and justified this by killing humans! My opponent falsely claims that I must know the exact intent of everyone committing murder and rape, specifically in the case of the KKK and Tanzanian African hunters. This is not true. They have a verbalized justification of their behavior. The KKK targeting minorities because of their beliefs and the Tanzanian African hunters targeting people because of their beliefs also. "belief" by definiton, is the stance on the validity of the truth of some statement. So justification is needed to see moral justification in these actions. Given Pro's burden of proof, and the validity of my objections (that went improperly unrefuted) I ask voters to remove bias from either side and weigh the evidence of human behavior on its own merits. Thanks to Pro for instigating this stimulating debate!