Morality is subjective.

Thanks pro. In this round I will paraphrase your arguments as "pro" and I will rebut with my arguments this round as "con". [last round, paraphrasing] Pro: my opponent argues that "x" is objectively immoral in instance "x" but can provide no examples. Con: Examples aren't necessary to provide a logical framework to deny the existence of objective morality if no empirical evidence has been shown to the contrary. I can make an argument that it's "possible" for dogs to speak english, but since no dogs have any record of speaking english even though they have vocal chords, the assumption that they can is assumed to be false. This is directly analogous to my assertion that since no lawful record in human societal existence has shown murder for the sake of pleasure or rape against someone's will is wrong, then it is assumed to be wrong based on our preconcieved notions of it being wrong and backed by empirical evidence that it hasn't shown to be true and also opposes any reason to argue otherwise. [last round, paraphrasing] Pro: The KKK movement and superstitious murdering of Tanzanian African albino's shows that murder for the sake of pleasure or rape against someone's will is not objectively wrong. Con: These are NOT examples of murder of the sake of pleasure or rape against someone's will. The KKK movement believed in the suppression of *blacks* or *other minorities* that they deemed to be unworthy. Not proponents of *murder for the sake of pleasure* or *rape against someone's will*. The same is applicable to the Tanzanian African albino's. They were murdered *because* they were thought to harness some superstitial benefit of good fortune or medicinal cure of illness. Therefore, these examples are not applicable at all because they require a purpose other than murder *just* for the sake of pleasure or rape against someone's will. My opponent agrees that ALL morality is subjective. Therefore, if I can provide JUST ONE instance of objective morality, my opponent's assertion that ALL morality is subjective fails. I have provided two examples that remain improperly unrefuted: 1) murder for the sake of pleasure is objectively wrong and 2) rape against someone's will is objectively wrong. [last round, paraphrasing] Pro: The words of a serial killer has little merit, expecially hours before execution because it's an attempt to save his life. His own previous contradictory statement proves that his final testimony is false. Con: This is inadvertantly particularly damaging to pro's case. Ted Bundy is arguing that "if there is NO God, then I have NO reason whatsoever to accept societal norms as being morally contradictory to what I WANT to do." Disturbingly, this line of logic is correct if no God or purposeful existence of the human race is true. However, in direct rebuttal to pro's point last round, moments before Ted Bendy's execution is much more reliable evidence of his true thoughts and feelings. Why? Because the years before Ted was sentenced to die, he had much more opportunity to appeal his case and be freed. Literally the day before his execution in his final interview, no opportunity whatsoever existed for his release. Thus, telling the REAL truth just before he was execution holds much more merit than anything he had said years beforehand. [last round, paphrasing] pro: Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer both showed remorse to simply appease to society in the hopes that they'd be released. Especially in the case of Dahmer because he had repeat offenses. Also, Dahmer began dismembering animals at an early age beause he had a poor social understanding between right and wrong. Con: The time at which both serial killers showed remorse or retractions of their previous behavior was too late in the death penalty process to be considered for appeals. Pro's baseless assertion that their motive for their evil intentions is because it was their true nature can't be verified. If their true intent can't be verified in either circumstance, either years before execution or day before, the instance right before execution should hold the most merit since they'd literally have nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth whereas years before their execution they'd lose out on the opportunity to appeal to an appeal's process. [last round, paraphrasing] pro: Aztecs committing human sacrifice has nothing to do with whether morality is subjective or objective. The point is that Aztecs viewed human sacrifice as morally permissible when it is clearly not viewed as morally permissible today.Therefore, morality is clearly subjective and not objective in light of this. Con: This does not directly address my major contentions which are: 1) murder for the sake of pleasure is objectively wrong and 2) rape againt someone's will is objectively wrong. My point in the previous round, was that since the Aztecs had some moral justification for human sacrifice, (it wasn't for the sake of pleasure) then in their mind it was morally permissible. I don't object to the assertion that subjective morality exists because I believe that subjective morality DOES exist, but I also believe there are cirumstances where morals are objectively true like in my examples of murder for pleasure and rape against someone's will are objectively wrong. Pro has yet to provide a compelling or relevant case to prove either one of my examples wrong when it is intuitively true, empirically verified, and has no other reason to logically believe otherwise. Back to you, pro.