It is more likely than not that morality does not exist

Thanks for the great reply! You are definitely great with words, and have already made this debate exciting, thankyou.I will proceed with the debate with the acknowledgement that you will be debating as a subjectivist. While I do hold belief that nihilism and subjectivism are very similar, I will hold that conversation if it becomes neccesary in this debate. Rebuttals:Definition of morality - The contradiction with metaphysics and biology As far as defining morality goes, it was not my intention to give a clear definition of morality, as that is counter-productive to my position. I did offer my own version of how the word is commonly interpreted (the definition my opponent claims to agree with), however I would like to stress that for the purposes of this debate, I am inclined to allow my opponent's definition to be offered up to debate. I will post the definition as my opponent sees it, and demonstrate my problems with it. “The concept of good or bad actions, thoughts, and behaviors”, defined by whatever society the system or morality issubject to (as that is what subjective morality is) and further, that it is a result of their instinctual view of what is good or bad, and is thusly subject to change as the society itself changes, and/or evolves to be instinctually opposed to new and different actions or ideas.Stefan Molyneux is the author of a great book (I definitely reccomend you read it when if you get a chance) called "Universally Preferable Behavior: A rational proof of Secular Ethics". This book largely references some of your outlook as defined in our definition here. I also agree with the basic outlook of your definition, though I think we have a slight difference in our interpretation of the definition.Stefan says "The truth is that we need morality; the lie is that gods or governments can rationally define or justly enforce it." (4)This is where me and my opponent agree; man made morality exists, and can vary. My own feeling as stated in the previous round, is that such a belief is beneficial to survival. In conjunction to Molyneux's belief, morality cannot be meta-physical, as such a stance on moral subjectism would make it. My opponent's definition provides that human instincts create moral subjectivism; but that takes subjectivism out of the metaphysical world, and demonstrates how morality is synthetic. This is exactly where my mis-understanding of the difference between moral nihilism, and moral subjectivism lie. The specific reference of instinct that takes morality out of the meta-physical world, is the biology that goes into "morality". "We humans -- and most other animals -- appear to be equipped with a set of predictable responses to situations. We call these the basic emotions: anger, fear, surprise, disgust, joy and sadness, as described in the 1970s by anthropologist Paul Eckman." (5)Because instincts are built on human/animal biology, morals are based on are emotional re-actions and thought processes.While slightly out of context, this Nietzsche qoute in his arguments on "morality as instruments of control" makes a good point."Pity is the practice of nihilism. To repeat: this depressive and contagious instinct crosses those instincts which aim at the preservation of life and at the enhancement of its value. Pity multiplies misery and conserves all that is miserable, and is thus a prime instrument of the advancement of decadence...."(6)The problem with subjective morality, is that it is too similar to nihilism. Yet to pre-suppose that it is a meta-physical concept is contradictory to my opponent's definition, which seems to agree that"morality is a result of an instinctual view of what is good or bad". The definition is seemingly built off a contradiction.Subjectivity, and GeneralitiesMy opponent made a couple of good arguments here that I would like to address. The first part of the argument speak of generalities that exist within cultures and societies. With the continued knowledge of existing subjecivity, my opponent's argument lies that in general, the instinct of one will not fall in line with the others. In a subjective world that not only values societies, but individuals, I find the concept a bit confusing. While my opponent didn't make any definitive statements with usage of the infamous words "right or wrong", generalities seem to be irrelevant in the context of moral subjectivism. A hyena that acts out towards it's group and proceeds to try and cannibilize to survive, may be isolated indeed. His subjective needs prioritize his prior instinct to conform. The hyena is still acting out of instinct, however the argument assumes that other hyena's who may have had more to eat would not have acted similarly on the brink of survival. Did the hypothetical hyena breach the line of it's societal morals? In context to my opponent's definition, it would have. If a society itself can dictate it's morals independently of the individuals inside that society, then the concept of moral subjectivity becomes just that much more confusing.For a society to have it's own independent morals, a society must have learned behaviors which start mutually from individualism. Because learned behaviors effect the outcome of many (instincts excluded) thoughts, actions, and behaviors, moral subjectivity cannot properly exist while excluding it's roots; individualism."In order to attack false moralities, we must start from the beginning, just as the first scientists did. Francis Bacon did not argue that the scientific method was more “efficient” than prayer, Bible texts orstarvation-induced visions. He simply said that if we want to understand nature, we must observe natureand theorize logically – and that there is no other route to knowledge. We must take the same approach in defining and communicating morality. We must begin using the power and legitimacy of the scientific method to prove the validity and universality of moral laws. We must start from the beginning, build logically and reject any irrational or non-empirical substitutes for the truth." (4)Good luck to my opponent, I am excited to see how the rest of this debate unfolds! Sources:(4) Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of SecularEthics: http://www.freedomainradio.com...(5) http://science.howstuffworks.com...(6) Friedrich Nietzsche