Without God there can be no absolute morals.

I would like my opponent to note that this is not an if/then logical statement. If the resolution read, "If there is no God, then there can be no absolute morals," then I would have to argue against the existence of absolute morals independent of a God. However, the resolution reads, "Without God there can be no absolute morals. " If I argue an antecedent of this - with God, there are no absolute morals - it still proves this resolution, as it is worded, false. As this is the final round, I will refrain from introducing new sources. I will respond using the same numbers as my opponent. My difference is an example of a difference between the two philosophies/moralities. My opponent dropped my points regarding the existence of people we experience indirectly. My opponent asserted in Round 1 that people only exist "to the extent that you experience them. " However he never countered my points, so we must conclude he concedes them. I reassert that your perception does not matter if it conflicts with reality. I may perceive that I will not get wet if I go into the rain, but that perception will quickly be proven false (I made this same analogy earlier). Likewise I may perceive that other people and their perspectives do not exist/do not matter, but this will also be proven inaccurate. Now my opponent admits that you can perceive "what its like to be outside of yourself. " I think my opponent may have confused empathy and sympathy. You can empathize with someone without having experienced what that person did. Having a duty to water is a faulty comparison - water is not living, and we (I am assuming my opponent lives in the developed world) generally do not provide our own water. If we rewound the clock or traveled anywhere in the developing world, we would have a duty to care for the water supply. 8. That the computer never receives a program does not mean the program does not exist in the same way that if I never play World of Warcraft, that does not mean World of Warcraft does not exist. 9. My opponent admits that he does not know why God would exist in your perception when other people would not. Essentially, he no longer defends this argument - I have won this point. 10. My opponent does not respond to my argument for method A of disproving the resolution. I argued that the actions of a child molester or murderer were immoral not because society perceived them to be but because they violated the rights (and perceptions) of another individual. Since my opponent does not respond to this point except to restate that moral dilemmas have no solution, we must conclude that he concedes this argument - and as it is central to the resolution even without God - the debate. 11. Again, I reassert my understanding that God is central to the resolution. My opponent did not clarify this in the resolution, nor in his opening argument. 14. My opponent counters my statement that power is not the only factor in determining victory with the statement "yes it is. " This is unsubstantiated. Additionally he says that children and the mentally handicapped still make their own choices. Perhaps I should clarify - they cannot make reasoned, informed choices. I cannot bring new evidence into the round to help prove this, but there are many studies out there. For example, we know that children's brains are not fully developed until around age 25. 15. We agree that 15 is not essential to the resolution. 17. I am not saying that absolute morality is determined by the majority. Refer to my argument regarding the child molester and the murderer. 18. My opponent already said that you can "perceive what it's like to be outside yourself. " Now he says it is impossible. This is a clear contradiction. Again, this boils down to perception versus reality. I have consistently argued that your individual perception does not negate reality, and my opponent has not sufficiently proven otherwise. 19. If the ammoralist can act in their own interest even when helping others, does this not still work toward a broader sense of morality? 20. I have sufficiently disproven this point. Refer to my duty paragraph (the paragraph right before 8 in this round). 21. I would agree that we are here to become better people and enjoy ourselves. I was not trying to insult you by pointing out the rules. I am sorry that we could not have a more fulfilling discussion. This was a truly interesting debate topic, and I am willing to admit some fault on both sides - yours for not clarifying and wording the resolution as it is - and mine for misunderstanding. I still think, however, that this should have been apparent from the start, not from halfway through the debate. Even if we acknowledge this, my opponent disregarded my argument about pedophiles and murderers.