CIIR's Argument for Morality is Valid

Ave.Contention #1CIIR has not provided anything to respond to in regards to this contention.Contention #2In R2, CIIR argued that 'morality = common sense' had nothing to do with his argument. I showed that he cannot attempt to separate his argument from the idea that morality is equal to common sense, because his conclusion states that to be the case. CIIR did not respond to this in his most recent round.CIIR's comments in this round raise more questions than answers. He argues that I haven't disproved his argument. Why is this the case? He argues I am pointing out fallacies that he hasn't made. Why is this the case? He makes claims about my arguments and then moves on to the next claim, never justifying any of them. If CIIIR wants the audience to think that I have not refuted his argument, then he should show why I haven't. If CIIR wants the audience to think I am pointing out fallacies that don't apply, then he should show it. Instead, he simply leaves us with bare assertions.CIIR stated that I must prove morality is not equal to common sense. I have to do no such thing. I only have to prove that the reasoning he uses to get to that conclusion is fallacious and unsound. We are not debating the conclusion, but the methods CIIR used to reach that conclusion. If we were debating the conclusion, then I would have written the resolution as 'Morality is not equal to common sense'.CIIR restates his criticism of my debating style, calling my contentions 'redundant'. This is not so. All of the contentions must be proven in order for the others to make sense. Consider the first and second contention.'(1) CIIR's argument for morality cannot be true if two things that come from the same source don't have to equal each other.''(2) Two things that have the same source do not have to equal each other.'If the first contention is not true, then the second one is irrelevant. If your argument has nothing to do with the idea that morality equals common sense, then there is no sense in arguing to the contrary. That's why these are two separate contentions.Now consider the third contention:'(3) From one and two, the argument is invalid.'If this contention is not true, then CIIR's argument would stand. Far from being redundant, these contentions are nessecary parts of my argument that must be individually proven.Besides, even if my contentions are redundant, it has nothing to do with their truth. It is only a criticism of my debating style. Sadly, CIIR, that is not the topic of this debate.Contention #3There is no attempt to respond to this.Concluding StatementI would like to remind the audience of a few important facts.(1)I named the fallacy that CIIR's argument makes, as he challenged me to do in the comments. CIIR never proved that this fallacy didn't apply. Instead, he made the bare assertions I talked about earlier.(2) My first and third contentions still remain untouched.(3) Even if you find my criticisms of the argument unconvincing, it is not a reason to vote for Pro. Since the burden of proof is on him, he still has to prove his argument to be true. It is not enough to make a negative case for an argument. In order to prove it to be true, you have to make a positive case as well.Vale.