Secular Morality (Pro) vs. Reigious Morality (Con)

First of all, no- you have to prove that religious texts are an objective way to regard human behavior because 'aside from' means that this thing you are referring to (religious texts) are different from the things previously mentioned in that they are not as described. To demonstrate:There is no objective way to measure human behavior aside from a religious text- i.e. (with regards to all moral codes) none of them measure human behavior objectively (except for) religious texts- which means that you must prove religious texts are an objective way to measure human behavior. I. RELIGIOUS MORALITY:My opponents response is nonsensical for 2 reasons:1. My opponent never provided a definition of God that said he was perfect, and Merriam Webster's dictionary doesn't include this either- instead he claims that God is 'perfect' without even defining perfect because a religious text that he claims came from God said so. Let's assume there is a God, and that my opponents bible came from him- why does that mean God is perfect? Because he said so? This is an assumption the assumption of an assumption which is highly unreliable in of itself. We don't even know that the person claiming it exists or assuming they do exist that they really claimed it, and even assuming they did, we have no reason to believe is true- in addition to all this, we haven't even defined the claim!2. This argument relies on the assumption that there is already an objective moral system that exists outside of God, which God is merely expressing to us and did not concoct himself- which means it doesn't require a deity to be true, and God is going off of his own Secular Moral Code since he doesn't believe in a creator that created him! II. SECULAR MORALITY:My opponent states:"They declare that libertarianism and classical liberalism are the source of secular morality, but they fail to justify this- they simply assert that one particular human standard is moral, while neglecting other, equally valid (in that they are all subjective) human moral standards. For instance, why chose those moral standards over Kantianism or Utilitarianism?"Because these moral systems are not consistent nor founded upon rational assumptions. Utilitarianism for example states that whatever benefits humanity the most is moral- well who decides what is best for humanity? By what system can we measure the state of humanity to tell if something benefited it or harmed it more? What I think is best for humanity is different from what everyone else does- making it founded upon a subjective preference. Kantianism is not even applicable nor sensical, nor is it founded upon first principles that are rational to assume. His first principles already assume a way that humans behave- it's like claiming murder is bad because humans shouldn't murder- it already assumes a morality prior to that, and is therefore not even a moral system of its own. He asks where number one came from- and the answer is that number 1 is a given- a rational assumption that is in itself true by definition. You ARE you, so how can you NOT own yourself? It is like asking why 2=2- 2 IS 2 so how could 2 NOT be 2? Aristotelianism first relies on our senses and our perceptions of reality, then applies Syllogism to come to conclusions about that. Claim 1 is based on the physical world and requires no further logic to explain it. If reality is that the sky is blue, no logic is needed to show that the sky is blue- objective reality itself assumes that it is self evidently true, that an object exists even as we look away from it. See Round 1:"Objective shall be defined as being based on logic and not emotions. Enable to fill the obligation of being 'logical' each argument must follow syllogism."Therefore, an objective set of moral principles must be formed via Syllogism, and based on Aristotelianism, which states that our senses are self-evidently true, and not be founded on emotion. I need not prove Aristotelianism or Syllogism since these were both given premise for this debate. CONCLUSION:My BOP was to prove that moral principles can be derived from logically following claims, originating from an observation of the physical world, all the while not requiring emotional assumptions. I have proven that this is indeed the case- my argument is a series of logically following claims originating from an observation of the physical universe- that people are themselves, and none of these clauses require an emotional assumption. Even if my opponent proves them wrong, I still won because they still fit the definition of objective provided in R1.