Moral Relativism is true.

Ave.The DebateIn this debate, I will be defending two major contentions. The first contention is that moral relativism is self-contradictory and impossible to act consistently with. The second contention is that there are no good reasons to believe that moral relativism is true. If I can defend these two contentions, then the debate ended on my side. Remember, even if my arguments against relativism fail, it does not prove Pro's side. He still has to make his own case in favor of the resolution rather than only refuting my arguments against it.Moral Relativism is Self-ContradictoryMoral relativism argues that moral judgements are subjective and do not correspond to reality. Therefore, we should be intolerant of other moral systems and ideas because of this. However, this presents us with a contradiction. Tolerance is treated as a universal moral value that we should all act by. A moral relativist in America thinks we should tolerate other moral systems, and a moral relativist in Brazil would believe the same. On relativism, everybody should be tolerant of other people's morality. Ergo, tolerance is assumed as objectively moral, making relativism self-contradictory.No Cosistent Relativist ProblemIt is impossible to live your life while believing that your moral values are not objective. If I were to punch Pro in the face, then he has no actual reason to consider me a bad person for doing so. After all, his subjective moral judgements are not true in reality. He cannot make any moral judgements against me, because on his own views, such judgements are not based in reality by definition.Moral Relativism is DangerousMoral relativism allows the worst of our society to consider their actions acceptable. Right and wrong are simply illusory, so therefore, nobody should consider their actions to actually be wrong. Because of this, a person such as John Wayne Gacy is given no pause when they perform actions like murder and molestation. Consider the following quote from killer Ted Bundy :"Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself–what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself–that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring–the strength of character–to throw off its shackles…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me–after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited."This should make us question whether we can have a civil society in a relativistic world. It seems that relativism completely undermines the justice system. If relativism is true, then we have no reason to stop ourselves from acting like Ted Bundy. We also have no reason to believe that people like Ted Bundy should be held responsible for what they do.Assumption of first valuesIn entering this debate, Pro has assumed several first values. These values are things like truth, respect for evidence, respect for logic, etc. However, he also claims that there are no objective moral values. How then can he enter a debate that assumes things like logic and evidence are objectively valuable?I give this over to Pro. Vale.