Secular Morality (Pro) vs. Reigious Morality (Con)

At this point, I'd like to draw attention to the wording Pro used in R1: "Pro must prove that Religious Morality is fallacious, and that there is an objective way to judge human behavior. Con must prove that Secular Morality is fallacious, and that there is no objective way to measure human behavior aside from a religious text. " These are the motions being discussed. All I did to these motions in my R1 speech was to split each one up into its two constituent claims- firstly about the fallacious nature of the other kind of morality, and secondly about the existence of objective moral standards. Now, the wording of the second part of the motion that I'm defending needn't actually require me to argue that religious texts are an objective way to measure human behaviour- rather, that there are no other ways. If there are no ways to objectively measure human behaviour, it is also the case that there are no ways to objectively measure human behaviour other than religious texts, and hence, the second part of my motion must carry. As it happens, I think that religious texts are the only way of getting morality which resembles anything objective, but should I fail to convince you of this, the second part of my motion may still be considered to have passed. Now, on to some rebuttal: "religious moraity [morality?] is not objective because religious texts are the mere opinions of those who wrote them- even assuming that there is a God who wrote them, his opinions would still be just opinions- granted, someone elses opinion and not our own." As I already stated, God is defined as being a perfect being. Thus, he is perfectly moral. Thus, his opinions are perfectly moral. That is what makes religious morality objective while secular morality is not- religious morality checks an action against the will of a perfect God, while secular morality checks an action against an arbitrary human standard- secular morality is inherently subjective for that reason. Pro actually proves this point very well: they declare that libertarianism and classical liberalism are the source of secular morality, but they fail to justify this- they simply assert that one particular human standard is moral, while neglecting other, equally valid (in that they are all subjective) human moral standards. For instance, why chose those moral standards over Kantianism or Utilitarianism? (see sources 4 to 6). Where does Pro get is claim (1) from? Though the standard Pro suggests is almost consistent (but not quite- why does 5 follow from 4?), it's based on a premise that they essentially arbitrarily (and therefore, subjectively) declared. Libertarianism and liberalism may produce an almost *consistent* moral code, but in order for it to be *objective*, one would have to justify its first claim as necessarily true from some fact about the universe, and there's no way Pro can do this- secular morality is necessarily based on subjective premises. So, to summarise: 1) You necessarily agree with my case if you think all morality is subjective. 2) You also agree with my case if you recognise that God provides an absolute, objective moral standard by which to measure things, while secular morality can at best produce a consistent, subjective moral standard. Sources: [4]: [5]: http://www.csus.edu... [6}: https://www.utilitarianism.com...