All Morals are Relative

My opponent has reduced his argument to semantics. He has presented a cherry-picked definition of morality that makes morality necessarily relative. He also commits semantic flaws to make this final desperate case, which I will point out soon. All of his arguments, save three, rely on these cherry-picked and erroneous definitions. One relies on equivocation, another on ignorance, and the third on a false dilemma. All are logical fallacies, and so my opponent's case crumbles. ==Definitions== Contrary to my opponent's claim earlier this round, my opponent has claimed to have defined morality twice in earlier rounds, including the rant "Morality, as I have defined, is our ability to determine what is right and what is wrong, and then act upon that knowledge." I showed last round that this definition was baseless, and my opponent has dropped it. My opponent then brings forth a volley of thirteen definitions of the adjective "moral," when the resolution clearly contains the noun. Last round, I put forth a definition for the noun which was unchallenged. It reads: "principles of right and wrong as they govern standards of general or sexual behavior" This definition is not cherry-picked, because under it, there is an open debate. Under my opponent's, there can not. This definition is the only one applicable to the resolution. This definition is also uncontested and (therefore) agreed upon by both debaters. Because of this, I will assume its usage. ==Clarifications== My opponent uses equivocation, a logical fallacy [1], to argue that a definition of absolute used in mathematical proofs also applies to this debate. The definition that applies in this debate is the one my opponent presented in round 2, "viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic." My opponent seeks to change the definition so that he can change the scope of the debate. The definition applicable to this debate has no "universal" requirement, as my opponent has asserted for a win based in semantics. The resolution, "All morals are relative" is negated with the presentation of an absolute and objective morality. A morality is absolute if and only if it is not comparative and viewed independently. ==Rights Versus Morals== My opponent has argued that because rights and morals have separate definitions, they are incompatible. This argument relies on a false dilemma, a logical fallacy [2]. A rectangle and a rhombus both have different definitions as well; however, that does not mean that something cannot be both (i.e., a square is both). My opponent has not attacked my round 4 argument that they are compatible in this instance, so this objection is defeated. ==Alleged Limitations== My opponent has asserted that fetuses have rights over their body under my argument. He does not confront my argument that only cognitive individuals have rights through my proof; he merely claims that fetuses are genetically human, which is entirely irrelevant to my standard. My opponent's objection, as I stated last round, is based on ignorance of my argument. ==Derivation== My opponent repeats that happiness does not justify actions, pointing to "societal norms." This objection is flawed in two ways. First, societal norms are irrelevant, because this proof is viewed independently. Second, following utilitarianism, as I stated last round (and my opponent has not contested), acts deemed immoral by societal norm (murder, rape, etc) are all immoral. My opponent's objection is false in both situation and application. My opponent's new objection is that I must not submit a moral position in a debate over moral relativism. This statement is incredibly foolish, considering that my opponent stated earlier in his argument that one of the ways I can refute the resolution is by presenting an absolute morality. My opponent then concedes that my argument follows logically from my premises, so my derivation stands. ==Misquoting== I do not see where I misquoted my opponent; however, if he points this out in the comments section, I will properly apologize. ==Moral Evolution== My opponent refers here to a second-round argument that I refuted in my second round. So, I have no reason to discuss that point further. My fourth-round objection, that moral evolution is entirely irrelevant to the debate because absolute morality is not required to be universal. ==Human Knowledge== My opponent again contradicts himself in his own round. He claimed at the beginning of the round that "I did not define morality," yet at the end, he claimed "My definition is in fact sourced", referring to my statement that "this objection on a still unsourced definition of morality." My opponent still has yet to warrant his definition of morality, and because he has conceded mine, his argument regarding human knowledge is, again, invalid, because morals are not required to be believed by all to be viewed independently and not comparative or relative. ==Conclusion== Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate that you've taken the time to read this long debate. Unfortunately, as in many philosophy debates, it fell to a debate about definitions very early. The new definitions my opponent chose in the last round were not only unfairly introduced in the last round and inapplicable to the resolution at hand, but also blatantly unfair for the context of the debate, as evident by his conclusion: "By simple definitions, all morals are by necessity relative." I, on the other hand, have presented an absolute morality. It is applicable to all moral dilemmas and was arrived at through the objective science of biology, as my opponent concedes. Because this morality is not based in collective subjective relativity, but in the objective fact of self-determination, it is sufficient to negate the resolution. Not all morals are relative. At least one is objective and absolute. The resolution is negated. Sources: [1] http://fallacyfiles.org... [2] http://fallacyfiles.org...