Morals Come From Evolution

You said: "It has become evident that the definition of morality is ambiguous, " Nonsense. You're trying to poison the well. My topic, My definition, Period. It doesn't matter how many definitions there are. I explained what I meant by it in the argument and the description was succinct. You said: " I believe morality can only be defined according to one's ideologies" You can only claim this if all morality is subjective, Is that your claim? Otherwise, I reject your methodology. If that is what you believe, Then you're mistaken. Cannibalism and incest are irrefutable proof that there at least some objective morals. The very act of participating in them destroy every organism in the group that participates. You said: "In fact, Morality is much like this - our morals seek to justify what we hold true. Adolf Hitler and the lateral Nazi Party that assumed power in Germany did have a morality. " for the millionth time, I already explained to you that evolution does not make everybody moral. It destroys those who don't act morally. Hitler is a perfect example. He acted counter to morality and convinced a bunch of people to do it and what happened? They got taken down by the groups who held a higher number of moral beliefs than they did. You seem to have this narrative that morality has to come from the way the person acts. That's not true. Morality is just a code to be followed. In this case, The code kills you with survival pressures if your morals are inferior. So the reason that making rape, Murder, And theft illegal in countries is popular is because all the countries that didn't get taken of by people who did. You said: "In your argument, It seems as though in everything we do, Our morals will justify the evolutionary ideals of natural selection" false. Evolution does not have "ideals" please do not assign agency to my argument. Natural Selection is a broad term for any survival pressure imposed on an organism by nature. That's it. There's no mind behind it. Furthermore, I am not using anything to justify evolution as you falsely claim, But rather the opposite. Evolution is justifying my morality. It's embarrassing for you to get this wrong because it's literally in the title of my topic. Evolution is a prove fact so there is nothing logically wrong with me using it that way. You said: "If we humans really blindly follow the morality of our genes, Whatsoever it is that threatens our existence is bad, " You seem to spend more time saying what my position is than I do. How about instead of telling me what I believe, You provide some kind of counterproof or dare I say, An argument of your own. I did not say that humans blindly follow. Once again you're forcing me to repeat myself because you're making no effort to understand the argument. My argument is that people do what people do, That part doesn't matter at all. The important part is that the people who don't adhere to morals get weeded out by natural selection. Any argument you make about humans being immoral is not germane to this argument. You have to prove that natural selection isn't the arbiter of morals and the evidence is against you if you look to science. So you need to provide a logical counterproof here and now. Otherwise, You're just making noise. You said: " It basically reaffirms that morality is not some sort of uniform code that all humans have inherited" I never said it was inherited, It's Natural Selection. The only reason humans use morality better now is because we evolved in other ways and that made us smart enough to figure out things that Natural Selection was already telling us. No inheritance in this family. You said: "To think that morality is ingrained in evolutionary ideals is, Simply put, Preposterous" Evolution doesn't have a mind. You said: " must also point out how you have merely cherry-picked lines to twist my arguments in your favor - " False, Are you going to say I'm cherry picking now? I'll address this directly because all debaters should know this. Lets' do a math problem. If you have 8, 000 words and I have to quote your 8, 000 words and then rebut them with my remaining words, How many words do I have left to rebut? The answer is zero. Any good debater knows that one cannot rebut every single sentence. I pull out the key sentence and then I rebut the whole paragraph that it was pulled from. Furthermore, Debaters are not suppose to go down every rabbit hole. Furthermore. When the opponent makes an argument that does not contribute to the topic, Those arguments are not to be addressed because they distract from the real topic. Kind of like right now. Wouldn't you agree that rebutting this would not help our debate? If so, Then you've retracted your statement. If you're going to accuse me of bad conduct. At least be correct when you do it. You said: "you have claimed it is wrong to think that our inability to kill a horse supports my point" I don't know why you're "shooting this question back at me" I answered it robustly the first time. Let me reiterate. Horses were domesticated such that some humans include them within their moral framework. I told you last time you answered this question that this explanation is sufficient because we kill things like bears without a second thought because bears have not been domesticated into our moral framework. You said: " an unleashed dog is barking at you ferociously. The "moral" human you have created through your arguments sees it as a threat to its existence, Owing to its ability to seriously maim us. Now tell me, If our morality really were based on natural selection and survival of the fittest" There's just so much wrong with this. First of all, I never argued for survival of the fittest. That's a sound bite you pulled from outdated evolution. Nobody goes by that anymore. Second, I never said you couldn't kill a dog in that situation simply because it's domesticated. If a human were in that situation being just as dangerous, I could justify killing the human as well if it was necessary for survival, So I'm not being inconsistent. You said: "an evolutionary mind should show no sympathy. " Once again, People's "mindsets" are not morality and evolution is not a mind. You said: "You have stated that morality came from nature. I agree to this. Yet what is this statement, Apart from merely a distraction from the important question at hand? For that matter, You can claim victory by saying our minds were tuned from evolution, Hence all our thoughts, Including morality are evolutionary. This is blasphemous. " And what question is that? Sounds like begging the question mixed with a red herring to me i. E. "Yeah this is true, But pay attention to this REALLY REAL question over here. Oh but I'm not going to tell you what it is. " Blasphemy huh? So are you saying that I'm denying god? Well yeah, I deny all fairy tales that my parents told me when I was young. If I can't believe that superman can do anything in real life, I'm surely not betting my money on Omni-man. Your floor