Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism Is An Incoherent Position.

My opponent states, "Alas, it seems I've reached another debate in which the majority of my effort will be dedicated towards explaining a concept rather than discussing it's philosophical merit. I obviously intended for the latter, and given the contrary this irks me. Nonetheless, given that this is my last round I will be as comprehensive as possible in the hopes that it will quell most of my opponent's concerns." I am somewhat at a loss concerning this remark. It appears unnecceasrily patronising and somewhat misplaced. It is customary in a debate to post defintions and explain terms of reference. I presumed that such definitions would be posted and agreed upon in the first round, and for my opponent (who as instigator bears the burden of proof) to post arguments in the second and subsequent rounds. I can not be held responsible for the fact he has chosen not to do this. My opponent states, "Simply because we agreed on the definition of MMR does NOT necessarily entail you are accurately arguing for MMR, which has become evident that you are not. The entire point of me bringing up emotivism is to highlight the fact that your arguments stand in favor of emotivism, NOT MMR" However my opponent has yet to post an argument against MMR. As it is PRO's role to make a case that MMR is unsound and incoherent, I as CON should be reacting to this. Even if we assume that I am arguing in favour of emotivism PRO has presented no argument to support his resolution and has therefore effectively forfeited each round. My opponent argues that "In my previous 2 rounds I stated how MMR is logically incoherent - the idea of certain statements (truth-apt sentences) being relative entails epistemological relativism. And given that epistemological relativism is absurd, we can deduce via modus tollens that MMR is absurd as well. The only reasonably close attempt you have made at refuting this central argument is to say the entailment doesn't follow. In response, I stated that you are confusing emotivism with MMR, thus invalidating your response." This is simply a reiteration of part of the debate, it adds nothing new to the debate. Hopefully this reiteration and expansion of my counter-argument will resolved it. MMR hold that moral statements are relative and subjective. Epistemological Relativism (as conceded by the opponent) holds that all knowledge is relative or subjective. The two are very different, though it may be inferred that a subscriber to epistemological relativism is likely to be a meta-ethical relativist it does not hold that a meta-ethical relativist is a subscriber to epistemological relativism. In addition my opponent has merely stated that epistemological relativism is absurd, he has presented no evidence to support this conjecture and as he has failed to establish this link. This point is therefore sucessfully nullified. My opponents statement of, "In response, I stated that you are confusing emotivism with MMR, thus invalidating your response" Is invalid, my opponent has been challenged to logically demonstrate that MMR = Epistemological Relativism not that Epistemological Relativism = Absurd. The introduction of emotivism appears to simply be another attempt to confuse the topic of the resolution. My opponent says that "The relevant distinction is that MMR includes truth-apt sentences whereas emotivism does not...how is that not clear in my last round? I specifically stated the crucial difference." The debate does not concern the distinctions between MMR and emotivism. In addition MMR only claims relative or subjective truths within the framework of personal and cultural value systems. Emotional moral judgements can be deemed true or false within the framework of the persons moral system. The divding line between the two topics is very thin. My opponent has failed to demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive positions. My opponent has failed to make this divergence into emotivism relevant to the debate. The remainder of my opponents post is a rather disapointing depature from proper conduct, and simply a reiteration of arguments that has been rebuted, in the absence of new arguments I can only draw the conclusion that they have been conceed. To summarise. 1: My opponent states that MMR = Epistemological Relativism = Absurd. He fails to provide an argument to support this connection and he fails to demonstrate that Epistemological Relativism is absurd. Just stating it so is not sufficient. 2: My opponent attempts to change the subject further by claiming I am arguing for emotivism. Irrelevant as my role in this debate is simply to destroy his argument. He has also failed to demonstrate that this positions are mutually exclsuive. My opponent states that "My position in this debate is not only is meta-ethical moral relativism unsound, it's logically incoherent" My opponent has failed to post a single valid argument in support of this position, I therefore strongly urge a default vote to con.