Morality is overall a good thing.

I too will provide a road map which goes thusly: I will attack my opponent's claims and then proceed to defend my own and go on to voting issues. //Refutations\Here my opponent makes the claim that morality is to determine what is "right" or "wrong" for oneself, not necessarily for others but this but in my opponent's first argument he is making the claim that morals help the quality of life which is defined thusly: "The term quality of life is used to evaluate the general well-being of individuals and societies. "[1] so as we can see, by my opponent's own argument in round 1 what is right and wrong must be applied to the members in a society to improve the quality of life and here he is put in a double bind. Either a)he actually isn't talking about quality of life and thus he is changing his original argument halfway through the debate or b)he is talking about quality of life which refers to multiple individuals thus linking to my disadd. // However, if we were to eliminate morals and fundamental principles altogether, what we would be left with is no basis for deciding which choices to make. Morals give people the ability to determine what they should do based on what they believe in. If people do not do what they believe in and don't show morality, they are fundamentally diminishing the quality of life because they are giving up the autonomy to select choices that are appropriate for themselves given any set of circumstances// Here my opponent is restating his point that morality is needed for good actions yet this utterly ignores the alternate cause to "good" actions and thus it flows through uncontested. //Though there may be conflicting morals, when you weigh that against the quality of life gained from morality, morality does more good then harm, and therefore is a overall a good thing. // The key thing that is missed here is that, again, my opponent entirely ignores my alternate cause argument which gains the improved quality of life whilst disproving the argument that good actions require morality. //Defending\ My opponent seems to miss the point of my first argument about Timothy. I was showing that there are conflicting interpretations of what is "good" and "bad" and because of that violence ensues. My opponent has conceded the fact that violence will ensue from conflicting morals and thus we must flow that across. My opponent now contests my argument about an evolutionary pathway for good actions and this is what I will hit the hardest. He says that my argument is essentially morality causing the good actions but this is just not true. The actions themselves are not inherently "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong" they just help or hinder society. //by valuing first what is in his or her best interest and then what is next best for the civilization. However, valuing what is best in your interest and your society's interest is, in fact, a moral, since a moral is defined as any principle of right conduct. // Saying this assumes that "right" and "wrong" has been previously established which ignores the fact that the actions are merely helping or hindering society, they are not "right" or "wrong" inherently. This is a key point. Our desire to help ourselves and our society is not based off of morality but our instinct. We apply the terms "good" and "bad" once we see the outcome. So my original argument that there is an alternate cause for the actions that are perceived as good still stands. The actions were not done out of any moral obligation as my opponent would have you believe. They acquired the term "good" and "bad" based on the impact they had.