Morality is an evolved social construct

Besides this, the sources lack all credibility - you cannot prove I did not create those videos to confuse you and post them on youtube. However, I will respond to every argument you directly make. "While the moral codes of different theological and societal groups may differ, there are certain simple morals that are inherently present in the minds of all mentally fit humans" There are two problems with this reasoning: 1) It is not an argument, because the conclusion (we are the same) does not follow logically from the premise (that we often differ) 2) You fail to define "certain simple morals" "This view that I hold is supported by the fact that other forms of life that have grown to be considered social creatures are known to sometimes reject basic instincts for an obvious moral reason. " This is a clear example of subjective morality - you describe what you perceive as being a moral truth, although to an ant (very much a social creature) that same moral truth may not apply as it does for a buffalo. In order for this case to stand you must first defeat my two arguments against subjective morality. Furthermore, while creatures often do reject basic instincts, just as often they do not. Dogs, for instance, can at times be incredibly moral (not barking loudly at children that annoy them) and at times show the very opposite (mauling innocents to death). This range has been observed both in the wild and in domestic situations. "It is not a complex path to learn about the causes and effects of actions taken against other creatures, and act accordingly. " This is true. It proves that there are no objective morals, only perceptions of morals based on amoral determinism. As a matter of fact, this whole paragraph paraphrases my first argument. What my opponent fails to do is show why this means that morality is inherited, as opposed to learnt, as "evolved" would suggest. "We find that all throughout the world, killing civilians is generall frowned upon, as well as stealing. " Actually, in many parts of the world, killing enemy civilians is morally acceptable. Take, for instance, the World Trade Center bombing. 3000 civilians were deliberately killed. The NAZIs considered killing civilians OK. So did Stalin, the biggest mass murderer of all time - and he was far from being religious. Is not euthanasia a form of killing civilians? You might think, from your subjective perspective, that this is the "wrong" interpretation of morality, but that is far from being a universal or provable point. Just as I wrote in my previous round - when you are unable to exclude the alternative you cannot accept something as true. I can make the same case for stealing - have you ever read "Robin Hood? " That is everything of substance that my opponent said. No proof that morality was evolved. Not even a tiny scrap of evidence that my morals are at all based on my grandmother's. Nothing to suggest that any of my arguments were wrong. No direct engagement with any of my previous points. All that my opponent said was some fallacious evidence for morality's existence. Frankly, I am a little disappointed. Before I seriously start to extend my case, I want to know my opponent's arguments. I want my opponent to walk me through how he thinks he can prove that our morality was evolved. Not assertions, not non-sequiters, not rants about religion . .. I want proof. Then, I want my opponent to tell me where, exactly, in my reasoning, my counter-argument fails. I even made this easy for him by providing index numbers for my arguments. Then, and only then, I want my opponent to respond to my counter-arguments in this round. That is the bare minimum my opponent needs to do at this point to meet his burden of proof. We're going in to round three now, and I have already done more than enough to meet mine. I seriously urge my opponent to consider his response carefully and hope for better things next round.