Pure Moral Reasons Are Not Enough to Form Laws

"Like what? Why shouldn't we kill? Yes it is depriving of life, but without Moral Reasons who is to say life is valuable? Many Laws are based in Morality. We as a society have accepted that it is wrong to kill, A MORAL choice." Because we have named, murder, rape, and burglary as against the law. Not necessarily wrong, but harming other non-consensually is against the law. It is all that I want my government to defend me from, non-consensual harm. Look, your arguing the exact way I asked you not to. Were still mainly talking about what laws are morals and what laws aren't. But, I named the specific laws I wanted us to just state as not morals, or excepted as the only moral laws we count as not being morals (reasons we should allow the government to defend us from, whether or not they are moral doesn't matter) What your arguing is an ENTIRELY different debate. Because I want to talk about "forcing your beliefs onto me, when there is no need too" Yes I told you could debate differently, but I specifically asked you not to debate this way. "Bill O'Donnell, former Nevada state senator (R-Las Vegas), said: '"It bothers me that we're [Nevada] making money off the backs of women. Condoning prostitution is the most demeaning and degrading thing that the state can do to women.'" You could argue that against the law stating that prostitution is legalized, that it is harming the women. And it might be consensual, but the women is not in the correct mind-set to know what she want to consent to and what she doesn't: As she is addicted to drugs. So no this isn't purely morals, it is protecting a prostitute from herself when she is not in the correct mind-set to protect herself. But, still there are women that are in the correct mind-set and they still want to be prositutes because they like the work. They should be allowed to do as they wish. No one is being harmed except them, but it is consensual and they have correct mind-set to be doing it, so why do we stop them? Because it is immoral to us? Is that fair? "It seems like we have Very Different conceptions in this round as to what is morality and what is not...." Which is why I asked you to argue whether or not you thought 'murder, rape, burglary, and harm in general' were moral concepts, to just argue that they weren't, so we could debate in a way that this debate was supposed to be debated. Not on technicality, which is proving the statement wrong 'because everything is a moral concept' instead of arguing it incorrect because 'morals are good reasons to form laws, even when you have no other reasons.' "Again, Why is Killing bad? It is bad because it has been accepted by society as being bad, This Is still a Moral Reason for why killing is bad." And that's great if you think it is immoral, good for you. But the government should till only protect us for 5 reasons: 1) Non-consensual harm Rape, murder, abuse, etc. 2) Harm to ourselves when we are not in the correct mind set to make life altering decisions Young kids dropping out of school, before they are the right age to understand what it means Prostitution-- Only doing it because of an addiction Drugs-- addiction, peer-pressure, not an understanding of what the addiction means. 3) Destruction of property Burglarizing, graffiti, etc. "Why was it our Job to do so? Moral Obligation? Again we see Purely Moral Reasons and Foundations...." Because, we wanted our government to protect innocent people. "Why do all people deserve this? becuase it is treating them as moral equals" And yes, that could be your look on it. But the government should look on it the way I said it "Stopping suppression of people non-consensually for no real reason, either then 'morals'" "Why do they have this right? Morality is the foundation of rights, Human rights are a Purely Moral Concept." I don't care what they are founded on, today they shouldn't be looked as as moral rights, they should be looked on as rights we want our government to give us and everyone else. "I only refuted this point as I had covered the others in my case." And your case had nothing to do with the rest of my arguments. Like I said before you argued the way I asked you not to. I asked in the first argument of the debate to consider the reasons I listed to not be moral, for the sake of this debate's main concept; because I knew, just as it did, we would end uponly argueing about what is pure morals and what isn't, and we would never get the chance to debate about exactly what I wanted to debate on. 'Pushing your morals onto me through the law, when what I am doing is not non-consensually harming someone, isn't fair because their is no reason to do it, and we should be allowed to follow our own moral beliefs" You ignored this argument, and had an entire debate on a technicality I asked you specifically not to have it on, one that you agreed you wouldn't have it on. But, you did anyways.