God exists.

My opponent agrees with premise number one. This is a fairly straightforward statement, meaning essentially that things of great moral wrongness occur in the world. By definition, evil existing means that there are some thing that are bad and should not happen, namely, evil. So me and my opponent both agree that nihilism as a belief is incompatible with reality. Premise number two logically follows from premise 1. This means that if evil actually exists, there has to be a system of right and wrong. Only ONE system. I emphasize one here because if there are multiple systems of right and wrong, differing in just one aspect, it cannot be said that any actions are morally correct. Why? Because, proponents of any one belief could easily claim they are right with equal prerogative. This would be subjective morality, which isn"t really morality at all. Now, if my opponent wants to defend subjective morality, he can go ahead to do so, and I will debunk it. If my opponent agrees with me that objective morality exists, that is to say only ONE system of right or wrong independent of humans, we can proceed to premise 3. If there is only one system of right and wrong, where could that system originate? Not from human opinion, because humans can disagree. Not on evolution, because it is a changing mechanism. It must be from a valid unquestionable source. Think about it. Also, to expand on premise 2, I would like to say that in order for objective morality to exists, is must be knowable. That means that is possible to learn what is right or wrong. If this were not the case, then nothing would matter, as no one would be able to objectively justify their actions. Speaking of justifying actions" If I am a programmer, lets say of the game Madden mobile, and I decide to add a rule that limits the amount of games you are allowed to play, that"s my prerogative. I have made the game, and I have the right to make the rules. If you don"t like it, don"t play right? In this example, some people would agree that reducing the amount of games you could play would be wrong, or unfair. But is it? I would say no. It is neither good nor bad. It is amoral. Deciding on the rules of a game that you make yourself is not morally wrong. It can be annoying to some, but there isn"t a rule that says, Thou must maketh games so that everyone can win automatically. Here my actions are justified, because I am the one who made the game. In order for you to be aware of a moral right or wrong, it must be either innate, or learned. In the case of innate morality, it still must be supplemented with additional parts of the system of morality. Babies aren"t murderers, but you still have to teach them manners right? It is very obvious that in order to know something, one must either be the originator of that knowledge, or have it conveyed to you through some medium. Assuming everyone learns from each other, we all pick up ideas of right and wrong from each other. But the real question is, who was the first person that knew about morality? Who enforces morality? And why do we believe them? I argue that the only possible way for objective morality to exist is in a world where a God exists. This is my third premise, and since my opponent agrees (presumably) with my first two premises, the only way for him to win this debate is to prove this wrong. Otherwise, he argues subjective morality, which I will quickly debunk. It is important to note that if my third premise is upheld as true, my conclusion necessarily follows, which is to say that God must exist. (My opponent actually misquoted my third premise, leaving out the objective part.) Lastly, in order to disprove my third premise, my opponent must at least provide an alternative world in which objective morality exists, but God doesn"t. Thank you.