Morality MUST be objective.

My argument shall take the following format: 1. A discussion on what makes an argument an argument 2. The significance of a logical fallacy on the truth of an argument 3. A logical recap of my opponent's argument 4. Why my opponent's argument is logically fallacious 5. Cleaning up extra points made by my opponent 6. Conclusion WHAT MAKES AN ARGUMENT AN ARGUMENT? In the attempt to discover truth, we construct explanations from what we already know. Premises are statements of something we already know, which we string together using logic in order to develop a conclusion of what we want to prove. This is the manner by which we develop new truth from preexisting truth. An argument is sound when all the premises string through properly to the conclusion. An argument is valid when it is both sound, and when the premises are themselves truthful. Thus, there are three main ways that an argument can fail: It can either have incorrect premises, it can not follow logically, or both. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A LOGICAL FALLACY A man with HIV appears normal to everyone else. It is only after a blood test that doctors can diagnose him with HIV. Similarly, we use logical arguments in every day situations. Most of the time, they are phrased in obscure ways that appear true, because we do not look at them with enough specificity. Examining an argument for logical fallacies is like applying a blood test. You catch things that bypass common sense, which is usually wrong. By scrutinizing, you can see whether or not a person's argument is flawed even if it seems truthful. LOGICAL RECAP OF MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT My opponent's argument is called a "Reductio Ad Absurdum", where we attempt to select true premises along with the thing we want to prove (assuming it is true) and show that IF it is true, then a logically fallacious situation will occur. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Take this example from wikipedia: ASSUME X is an even prime number greater than 2, and follows the basic laws of mathematics. 1. X is divisible by 2 2. X is divisible by 1 and X and nothing else 3. X is not 2. 4. X is not divisible by 2 (since X is only divisible by 1 and X, and X is not 2). Combining some of these derived statements, we may conclude: X is divisible by 2, and X is not divisible by 2. This leads to a logically contradictory statement. Therefore, from this, we can say that there can be no even prime number greater than 2. My opponent's Reductio ad Absurdum argument is as follows: ASSUME Morality is subjective 1. Hitler's morality is subjectively valid 2. Mother Theresa's morality is equally subjectively valid 3. Hitler's morality is as valid as Mother Theresa's morality This is a logically fallacious situation. Therefore, Morality must not be subjective. WHY MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS There are several things that are wrong here. HIDDEN PREMISE/BEGGING THE QUESTION First of all, there is a problem with the declaration of absurdity. Whereas the example by wikipedia showed that X is divisible by two AND not divisible by two and declared it absurd, my opponent is declaring it absurd because Hitler's morality cannot be subjectively equal or greater in validity than Mother Theresa's morality. However, it is not an established premise that Mother Theresa's morality was more valid. This is a "common sense" assumption made by my opponent, a premise he suggested but did not prove. Furthermore, if we assume as a premise that Hitler's morality was less valid than Mother Theresa's, this would be an assumption of Moral Objectivity. Moral Objectivity is defined by my opponent as a moral set that is intrinsically correct. Thus, my opponent's logical argument reduces down to this: ASSUME Moral Subjectivity given Moral Objectivity 1. Morals are subjective 2. Morals are objective 3. Morals are both subjective and objective This is logically fallacious. Therefore, Morals must not be subjective. We can see that this argument is invalid because he begs the question as a premise. Thus, while his argument has the appearance of one that is valid, it is not. CLEANING UP EXTRA POINTS I have clearly shown that my opponent's argument is severely flawed. Thus, in this section, I will clean up any extra points, pieces of evidence, or analogies my opponent has brought up along with his main argument from top to bottom. 1. Definitions: My opponent copied and pasted definitions but has not specified any. Thus, we will use common sense definitions as the debate has already started. 2. My opponent talks about "morality in the real sense". This is undefined and has potential for a logical fallacy. Morality exists because we can distinguish as individuals between right and wrong actions. This debate is about Objectivity vs Subjectivity, whether that ability to distinguish is justified on one scale, or only on the individual scale. 3. My opponent then says that we cannot decide what is subjectively better or worse with moral subjectivity. That is the definition of moral subjectivity. True moral validity is equal across the board. However, we as a group decide what actions are more or less moral from popularity. Much like how Blue Jeans come into fashion, or how females tend to wear pants more and dresses less. 4. Tea analogy: My opponent's tea analogy is just a declaration that the true objective morality is the first morality to develop. However, this is flawed as I will demonstrate using his own analogy. Tea was probably the result of an accident, as were many inventions of the past. The "true" tea may have been so bitter that no one wanted to drink it. The second tea might have been acceptable and thus, became more popular. However, there is absolutely no reason to say that any cup of tea is the right cup of tea (even the very first). Was the first computer better than the computers we have today? Was the first lightbulb better than the ones we have today? Was the first telephone better than the telephones we have today? If the first morality is used as the benchmark, it doesn't show that it is right. Objectivity is not having a standard. Objectivity is claiming that the standard IS the best, or is the correct one. Simply having a comparison for something does not show that there is objectivity. The fact that the first ice cream flavor was "Cream" does not mean there is Objective ice cream flavor preference. CONCLUSION I have not only shown that my opponent's logical argument was completely flawed, but have also addressed each one of his extraneous points as well. My opponent has nothing outstanding. In addition, I have made small arguments for moral subjectivity throughout my analysis of Moral Objectivity. Based on this, I negate the resolution. I look forward to my opponent's response.