The Moral Argument is Not Sound

This round is for conclusions. No new arguments should be added. A summary of previous arguments and an appeal to the voter will be allowed. Conduct Scotty and I both maintained reasonable conduct. As long as Scotty doesn't break any rules in his last round (like adding new arguments), then conduct should be a tie. Grammar Scotty's posts contain numerous grammatical errors, which often muddle his intended meaning. I'll leave it up to voters to read these posts and vote accordingly. Because no such glaring and obstructive grammatical flaws appear in my posts, I should get the grammar point. Arguments I argued that P1 of the moral argument contains two implicit contentions: (1) Theism can provide a foundation for morality. (Theistic morality is possible) (2) AFM cannot provide a foundation for morality. (Non-theistic morality is impossible.) I argued that as long as just one of these is false, then the moral argument's P1 is not true, and the moral argument is unsound. I argued that non-theistic morality is possible (that, in the absence of a good argument against it, we are justified in thinking it is possible, even without an account of its ontology.) I also gave a possible ontological foundation for non-theistic morality called Non-Reductive Ethical Naturalism. On NREN, moral values (goodness and badness) are grounded in non-moral properties (such as suffering and happiness), in a similar way that colors (red and yellow) are grounded in non-color properties (such as reflected light particles.) As for moral duty, I argued that moral obligation arises in the recognition of goodness or badness by a moral agent. Instead of arguing against these accounts, Scotty instead focused his arguments on mostly straw mans and other non-sequiturs (One recent example: Scotty: "I do understand my opponent wants to divide theist and atheist by applying we all have different sets moral but that is untrue." Straw Man: I never said this. In fact, I argued the opposite, that moral disagreement isn't very widespread. This is also a prime example of one of Scotty's more benign grammatical failures.) In addition, in each round, Scotty drops his old arguments. In summary, I should be given the convincing arguments points because: 1.) I provided reasons for thinking God is not necessary for the existence of objective morality. This contradicts P1 of the moral argument, proving it unsound. 2.) Scotty never successfully rebuts these reasons (and mostly argues against straw men.) 3.) Scotty drops his arguments each round under the weight of my criticisms, instead opting to take a different approach to the argument. 4.) Scotty never offers a single clear argument to support that God is necessary for OM. (Even if you disagree with my position, it's clear that Scotty didn't argue for his position very well.) Reliable Sources Most of my sources were philosophy papers from actual philosophers, published by peer-reviewed academic publishers. In contrast, Scotty included some very sketchy sources in his references list (for example: a creationist website; an irrelevant article about atheism as it relates to law and secularism; a mindbogglingly absurd and irrelevant ezinearticle about Aliens and Christianity, etc.) This isn't to say all of Scotty's sources were entirely unreliable. A couple were decent enough. But given that mine were, on the whole, more reliable, I think it's reasonable to expect that I am given the reliable sources point. I also ask voters to specify their reasons for each category of point distribution. If the vote is as one sided as I think it should be, I don't want anyone to be accused of vote-bombing.