Secular morality is superior to religious morality

Evaluation of the debateThroughout this debate, my opponent has consistently avoided the pressing issue via the use of false analogies. Health systems can be evaluated with respect to how they promote health, government can be evaluated with respect to how they promote freedom, peace and prosperity. This much is true. The problem is that these are not analogous to the present situation. These analogies do not represent how we approach axiomatic subjects. Morality can be judged based upon whether or not it accurately represents right and wrong values and duties. Any thinking observer can see that this is actually circular reasoning inasmuch as the only way to know right and wrong values and duties is to already be operating under the assumption of some moral system. Health systems look at health. Morality looks at morality. How does my opponent know when these moral systems get it wrong if not for some other moral metric?In this debate I have pointed out that my opponent has tacitly assumed some third system precisely because he has somehow been able to recognize when purported systems of morality have got it wrong–both secular and religious alike. This is a significant problem because my opponent subsequently did not inform us about the moral system upon which he was making these judgments. Was it pure subjective thinking?He did rise to the level of saying that we should assume a secular morality because there is evidence for it. This is false, of course. There is only evidence that secular institutions make moral claims. There is absolutely no evidence that these moral claims are true. The irony of course is that my opponent has claimed that both religious and secular morality are imperfect systems, because, presumably, they get morality wrong sometimes. But if they get it wrong, what does that mean? We can’t be basing their wrongness on some other secular or religious framework, or we would be discussing those. No, instead, my opponent appeals to some other metric by which to judge, presumably something not in the realm of secularism or religion proper. (But of course, it’s not transcendent either.)In my opponent’s closing round he just decides to say that morality must be a social construct because there is no evidence for it. This is false, again. First, our experience of morality as an objective construct is evidence for it being so. We only know of several universally accepted axioms based on experience alone. But this doesn't matter at this point. What matters is that my opponent has presupposed his point in order to make it. A religious framework would be superior if it were true. A secular morality would be superior if it were true. My opponent has not in any way shown the truth of the latter and thus has not even begun to make a case. He has (1) said that secular morality is an imperfect system based upon some unknown moral metric and (2) said that secular morality is a superior system. The conjunction of (1) and (2) create an exceptionally weak case for the superiority of secular morality because it assumes itself wrong from the onset.I hope the readers will be able to see that my opponent fell a mighty distance short of proving his burden in this debate.