objective morality does not exist!

My opponent's entire second round posting is a non-sequitur. Izbo begins by reiterating the fact that he attempted to place the burden of proof and other debate restrictions on a non-party to the debate. If the readers look in the comments, it is very clear that he was aware of this before I accepted the debate. For the fun of it, and because it exposes the depth of my opponent's intellectual dishonesty and debate cowardice, I'll respond to some of his statements:>> "why he thought he could make the contention is beyond me"What contention? I simply responded to the rules Izbo himself created. >> "That is the stance he is taking that I have no moral obligation to make the debate in a way that is fair to him."That's all well and good, but it is no fault of mine that Izbo utterly failed in his attempt to make the debate one of unfair terms. I'm here to debate the issue. I'm not sure what Con is doing.>> "the problem is not that there is not an objective way to debate"Who said there was?>> "He can not say that this opinion that an unfair debate should be presented is any less valid."I attempted to alert Izbo that the terms of the debate were unfair to HIM, not to me. I'm quite confused why we are talking about the fairness of the debate. The fairness of the debate terms have nothing to do with the resolution.>> "he is presupposing that we have any moral obligation to believe in truth"Where is this possibly evidenced in my argument? Pragmatic application rarely has anything to do with truth (take, for example, religion). Nowhere have I said or even hinted that we have a moral obligation to believe in truth... All of this notwithstanding, belief in truth is irrelevant, because if it is truth, then by definition, it will still be true, regardless of belief. Interestingly enough, the word "truth" never appears in my Round 1 post, so I'm not sure where Izbo gets the above idea.>> "he comes in here arguing subjective morality"Actually, at no point have I advocated subjective morality either. All I've done is show objections to objective morality. Furthermore, it is not my burden to show that on balance, subjectivism is more reasonable than objectivism - I could, for example, espouse non-cognitivism or antimoralism instead. I should note also that the word "subjective" only appears in 1 place in Round 1 - where I note that objective moral systems have a problem with arbitrary, subjective valuation of "the good.">> "He puts forth these arguments, assuming we are suppose to believe in logic"Your belief in logic is completely irrelevant. An argument or position is logical regardless of whether you believe in logic or not. The objective nature of logic can clearly be contrasted with the nature of morality because notions like logic and truth are definitionally objective (i.e. if it turns out we were wrong about truth or logic, we made a mistake, whereas moral propositions are subject to disagreement... unless you simply presume objectivity, which begs the question here).>> "He better not just assume that we are morally obligated to believe logic is the way to find the answer and just guessing is not morally the right thing to do in an opinion."I've clearly shown that there is no connection between morality and things like truth and logic. My opponent is simply attempting (poorly) to strawman my position. He begins by falsely asserting that I am drawing a connection between moral obligations and nonmoral principles like truth and logic. Furthermore, the notion of "belief" in logic or truth is absurd. Individuals may have a belief about the truth or the logic of a proposition (i.e. believe X is true, or that argument XYZ is logical), but this does not the same as a belief in truth. How could such a belief be formed? I believe truth is ______ ? I believe logic is ________? Truthful? Logical? That's about as useful as tanning lotion in Seattle.>> "I ask my opponent is he debating for or against objective morality? All I see is he is inferring objective ways that people are obligated to think to make his argument which defeats his whole argument."Again, a poor attempt at strawmanning my position. I have not presented any objective positions - in fact, the very nature of the argument against objectivism is that people have a choice of which of the alternative positions to believe in. The fact that my opponent characterizes any of my argument as an inference of objectivity is clear evidence that at best, he has no idea what objectivity actually is, and at worst, heinous intellectual dishonesty.*********************************************************************************Well my opponent seems to have wasted his second round in a row. Let's see if he can come up with anything at all to debate about in the third round. I predict it will follow as such:1) Whine about the rules my opponent himself improvidently made.2) Strawman my position.3) Assert I'm actually on his side despite considerable (read: 10) evidence to the contrary.4) Claim victory.5) Whine some more about his loss in the comments section.For those of you that subscribe to the TL;DR method of reading debates:Objective morality requires a valuation of "the good", an entity to engage in moral reasoning, and a vehicle by which humans become aware of moral rules. I have raised these objections, and Con has no responded to them.It almost leaves the reader to wonder why Con would instigate a debate, but refuse to address any of the actual issues, or post an argument of his own. Stop wasting my time.AFFIRMED.