Morality is an evolved social construct

I wish to point out that nothing I said in my second half of round two was an ad hominum attack - I was merely pointing out what my opponent still needs to do in order to build a complete argument. I don't mean to slander, but feel obliged, if my opponent has missed critical parts of his argument (in fact, he had no rebuttal whatsoever) to point that out to my opponent. I would hope that if I had missed out chunks of my case or made fallacious points, my opponent would point that out to me, giving reasons as I did. My opponent has specifically asked that I rebut the battle of Kreugar video. Frankly, I was quite proud of the rebuttal I offered last round, which was in paragraph three (animals following conventional morality). What I said was that this is a confusion of subjective morality, that I have already rebutted subjective morality in round one, and that while sometimes creatures are moral, just as often they are not, proving they behave amorally. Just for fun, I'll extend the case to show how this does not prove EVOLVED morality - if I was God, I could have implanted morality in those buffalo. This is an alternative my opponent cannot exclude, so the point is null. What is interesting is that I made seven counter-arguments in the previous round, and four direct attacks against my opponent's case in round one. Of these, my opponent has only attempted to rebut two very selective counter-arguments. By way of contrast, I have, in fact, rebutted everything that my opponent has directly said, just as I told you I would last round. I still hold out hope that in the last round, my opponent will attempt to rebut the rest of my arguments. What my opponent chose to rebut was the following: 1. "Actually, in many parts of the world, killing enemy civilians is morally acceptable. " REBUTTAL 1: "what I was referring to is that it is frowned upon if you were walk up to your neighbor and shoot them point-blank in the forehead" Cool. So you're saying that nobody has ever shot their neighbor point blank in the forehead and found it morally acceptable? As a matter of fact, they have - slaves revolting against their masters who lived next door, Serbian Ethnic Cleansing, and so on. I would also suggest that if this is a morally evolved instinct, then evolution must be working really fast, as guns are a quite recent invention. REBUTTAL 2: "Senseless cultural fratricide. " Cool. So NOW you're saying nobody likes killing their brother. Think of ancient Rome's founding. Enough said. There are numerous cases of people killing their brother and calling this action justified. 2. "the conclusion (we are the same) does not follow logically from the premise (that we often differ)" REBUTTAL 1: "while the specific moral codes of one society may differ from another when it comes to complex issues" Define a complex issue. I would argue that killing, stealing, sharing and complimenting are all complex issues. REBUTTAL 2: "killing is bad" Not generally accepted. War, abortion etc all still divide people. This is an argument I have made before. REBUTTAL 3: "stealing is bad" Not generally accepted. Stealing from rich to give to poor, looting after disasters, stealing something that is rightfully yours and so on . .. these are divisive issues. REBUTTAL 4: "sharing is good" Not generally accepted. That's why the United States won't share their nuclear weapons technology with Iran. REBUTTAL 5: "compliments are nice" Not generally accepted. Some parts of the world have specific rules about the time and place at which compliments may be said. REBUTTAL 6: "Simple things that even a child can understand from the outset" Is that so? So you are saying that children forced to grow up in the wild become moral creatures? While not proving your case, this is a mad assertion, because children naturally take on role models whose behavior they follow (. http://tvnz.co.nz...). A point about many of my rebuttals. It only takes a single example of your morality to be false to prove amorality. One wrong observation breaks the rule. My theory has got a sum total of 0 wrong observations, while I have listed 9 specific examples of wrong observations in your model (counting from last round). And you can't counter them by making them as specific as hell either - the whole point of morality is that they are general rules on whether a wide range of situations is good or bad. I'm still disappointed that my opponent has chosen not to rebut the vast majority of my case, and is yet to offer any complete proof of his assertion like I have. I'd like to wish my opponent luck for the final round and, probably for the first time . .. I hope that I will have lots of work to do.