Morality is Necessarily Subjective, but Non-Arbitrary

The Resolution: Pro has undertaken to prove three things: 1. Morality is non-arbitrary, 2. Morality is subjective, and 3. the subjectiveness of morality is necessary, as opposed to just possible.Pro has the burden of proof. He has to prove all three, not just some. 1. Morality is non-arbitrary: My defense here is the simple demurer: Pro has not demonstrated that morality is non-arbitrary. Since I can't figure out what he's trying to say, I cannot offer more detailed criticism. But I'm probably not alone. Any readers who don't understand Pro's argument should vote for Con. Pro has to prove his case, and he cannot prove his case through incomprehensibility. If he does not prove this part of his case, in addition to the other parts, the votes should go to Con. 2. Morality is subjective:Most people probably won't read a debate that doesn't make obvious sense. I've read it over and over since I'm a participant. I still don't get what he's saying. If you have read this debate, and don't understand Pro's case, then he has failed to communicate. He has failed to prove what he has to prove. You should vote for Con. On this second point, I did grasp some of what Pro was saying. He said that morality is subjective because it doesn't apply to rocks. I raised two objections to that: a) If we accept that "ought implies can," then morality applies to rocks as well as to people. b) Pro used a weird meaning of "subjective," his own private incomprehensible usage. He did not prove or even try to prove that morality is subjective in any normal sense of the word. Since he did not define "subjective" when setting up the debate, he may not resort to his private idiosyncratic and inexplicable usage. He must prove that morality is subjective in the normal sense of the word. Pro responds to the latter point. I believe that this is the operative language: "I meant to say that objective mechanisms are accessible to the analysis of third parties." Well, I'm a utilitarian. For me, morality is accessible to third parties. Deontological morality is also analysed by third parties. Pro hasn't mentioned what kind of morality he favors. Something secret and inexplicable, apparently, not subect to analysis by third parties. That's fine for him, but it doesn't prove his case. There are plenty of kinds of morality that are subject to much rational discussion every day. Pro hasn't refuted any of these moralities, nor even tried to. And his time for introducing new arguments is over. He can't introduce a new argument in the final round of the debate. Therefore, Pro has effectively dropped this point (along with the other two), which he had to prove (along with the other two) in order to prevail. 3. the subjectiveness of morality is necessary, as opposed to just possible: Since I can't make out Pro's arguments, I cannot swear that he hasn't addressed this issue. To say that morality is necessarily subjective is to say that there is no possible world in which morality is objective. As near as I can tell, Pro hasn't addressed this issue. If you can't tell whether Pro has addressed this issue, or if you think he addressed it but didn't find him persuasive, then Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof, and you should vote for Con. Conclusion: The resolution is a complex statement. Pro has to carry all three issues to carry this debate. If he has not been lucid and persuasive on all three issues, you should vote for Con. Next round is the final round. If Pro has to introduce new arguments in order to prevail, your vote still belongs with Con Notes: Please extend my arguments. I confessed my utilitarianism in order to use it as an example. I'm not trying to prove that utilitarianism is correct in this debate. I'm merely illustrating that Pro has not refuted all moralities in which allow for third party analysis.