Morality comes from religion.

I am aware that some of this debate has become quite muddied, so I will try to make this round as clear as possible. First, I would like to note that Con has dropped every single one of his contentions from the first round, and has reduced his workload to attempting to refute my own contentions. As instigator, he had a burden of proof to uphold, which he has failed to do. Voters should take note of this. They should also take note of the fact that all his remaining arguments are not specifically arguing that the resolution is false, but that it is POSSIBLE that the resolution is false. But this is hardly an impressive conclusion to come to, and it isn't enough to win this debate. Again, Con has ignored a great deal of the points brought against him 1. Con begins by claiming that instead of affirming the resolution 'morality comes from religion', I have instead been arguing for the resolution 'people are introduced to a system of morality with religion as the medium'. Note that even if he is correct, all he has shown is that people do not neccesarily draw their morality from religion, but he has not actually demonstrated that they do not. But, once we look closer, we can see that this is simply false. It is simply absurd to suggest that there are no ways of interpreting right and wrong based on the religious beliefs one holds. Think of the number of people who base their lives on the Ten Commandments, for instance. Are we to think that all of these people would have come up with exactly the same morality in the absence of them? Which brings me to another important point. Is divine command theory objective? Well, lets leave aside the controversial statement that morality based on God's whims are objective. That is, in fact , utterly irrelevant. Divine command theory is objective if, and only if, the religion that commands it is TRUE. If even a single religion that people base their understanding of morality is false, then the moral codes, such as divine command theory, that it espouses, are SUBJECTIVE. They fit Con's definition 'one's own personal means of distinguishing right from wrong, or a culture's means of distinguishing right from wrong' perfectly. Thus, the resolution is affirmed. It is a shame that Con has avoided answering my question based on such a misunderstanding. 2. The problem here is that 'homosexuality is wrong' is NOT the moral code. Again, Con is mixing up the conclusions of a belief about morality with the belief itself. The statement 'homosexuality is wrong BECAUSE GOD COMMANDS IT' IS based on religion, and could not have arisen without it. Therefore, Con's defence fails - and since Con carries on this misunderstanding into arguments 2 and 3, nothing more need be said. Con has done nowhere near enough to negate the resolution, especially as instigator. His arguments at best show that we cannot 100% prove that people's way of interpreting morality comes from their religion. But this is absurd - we cannot 100% prove that the world is not suspended on the back of a turtle floating through space. What matters is what's probably true, and it is not merely probable, but certain that people's ways of interpreting morality come from the religion they follow. In conclusion, let me note Con's last statement; 'I, however, have demonstrated that it is entirely possible for morality to exist in the absence of religion; thereby, morality does NOT come from religion'. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Con's entire argument, and it is a complete non-sequitur. Let me draw an analogy; it is entirely possible for a child to hate his parents in the absence of child-abuse. Are we, then, to conclude that children CANNOT hate their parents because of child abuse? No, it just means that hatred can come from a number of sources, child abuse being one of them. In the same way, subjective morality comes from many sources and religion is one of them. The resolution is affirmed.