Pure Moral Reasons Are Not Enough to Form Laws

Look Essentially What my point has been is not that Basic Protection is a Moral reason, but that rather the fact that laws are created to save from wrong and to promote right. "Like what? Why shouldn't we kill? Yes it is depriving of life, but without Moral Reasons who is to say life is valuable? Many Laws are based in Morality. We as a society have accepted that it is wrong to kill, A MORAL choice." Because we have named, murder, rape, and burglary as against the law. Not necessarily wrong, but harming other non-consensually is against the law. It is all that I want my government to defend me from, non-consensual harm. As I see it, this is one of the major points in the round, Why is Non-Consensual Harm Bad? This seems to be derived the the Moral right of Autonomy. So why is Non-consensual harm bad? because it is Wrong. Protection may not be a moral reason but what we protect IS based in morals. without any conception of morals then nothing is wrong, because nothing is wrong, everything must be right. Thus if everything is right that laws cannot exist. "Look, your arguing the exact way I asked you not to. Were still mainly talking about what laws are morals and what laws aren't. But, I named the specific laws I wanted us to just state as not morals, or excepted as the only moral laws we count as not being morals (reasons we should allow the government to defend us from, whether or not they are moral doesn't matter) What your arguing is an ENTIRELY different debate. Because I want to talk about "forcing your beliefs onto me, when there is no need too" Yes I told you could debate differently, but I specifically asked you not to debate this way." The agreement was made that I would not argue protection as a Moral Concept, This is pretty clearly stated in round one.... I have never said that Protection was a moral concept, I merely argued that Pure Morals are the reason for all laws even if you discard some of the examples as outside of where I agreed to argue, the main premise of my side still remains, the resolution asks us is laws should be made for moral reasons, And I say any law has Pure Moral reasons behind it. Here is one solid example of laws made for pure Moral reasons, equality. Why is equality important? the simple answer is because each person has the same moral worth, and deserves the same rights. Human Rights are another, Why do humans have these basic rights? without the human right of liberty nobody could be non-consensually taken of their right to liberty as it was simply not a right. The reason they cannot is Pure Morality. "I don't care what they are founded on, today they shouldn't be looked as as moral rights, they should be looked on as rights we want our government to give us and everyone else." Look what the resolution is asking us, "Are Pure Moral reasons enough to form laws?" Not to sustain laws, The Human Rights that are now legally protected were formed from PURE MORAL REASONS. 'Pushing your morals onto me through the law, when what I am doing is not non-consensually harming someone, isn't fair because their is no reason to do it, and we should be allowed to follow our own moral beliefs" You ignored this argument, and had an entire debate on a technicality I asked you specifically not to have it on, one that you agreed you wouldn't have it on. But, you did anyways." I did not debate a technicality, I did not Attempt to say that protection was a pure moral reason as I was asked not to, the core of my argument was essentially(to sum this up quickly) that all laws are not based upon protection but upon right and wrong, The Law against killing exists because it is wrong to kill, this is an instinctive moral value that most humans have but is nevertheless a PURE MORAL REASON.