Naturalism provides a sound basis for morals

You have not refuted any of my objections. You essentially agreed with my refutations. Let me address your round 3 argument using the same headings you did. Objective Morality Your quarrel with my definition of sound is unwarranted. If something is sufficient and reasonable, it can also be reliable. Indeed both "based on reason" and "reliable" are within the definition domain (https://www.google.com...). So there is no confusion on my part. In either case, you have not addressed your own resolution even given your specified definition of "sound" as I will show. You say, "My opponent is correct in stating that I hold to a relativist approach to morality. Despite this, I do not see morality by means of natural selection to be prohibiting of explaining how we arrived at our moral intuitions. Indeed, we have no objective standard by which to judge them, though this does not necessarily invalidate the concept of evolved morality." Not only do you agree with me, but you offer no rebuttal. Just saying you do not "see" morality by means of natural selection to be prohibiting of explaining how we arrived at our moral intuitions does not equate to evidence or a refutation. Natural Selection Your appeal to majority is quite silly. In the 1600s, Galileo gathered evidence which refuted geocentrism and supported heliocentrism. Most people in the world at that time accepted geocentrism or the Tychonic system (essentially geocentrism). The Roman Catholic Church was the academic authority at this time and his findings seemed to refute their ideas of astronomy, so they persecuted him and sentenced him to life under house arrest (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The point to be made here, as you surely know, is that majority can often be horribly wrong. Then there was only a handful of scientists who opposed geocentrism. Today hundreds of scientists oppose Neo-Darwinism and accept biblical creationism (http://creation.com...), and even more are suspicious of its true mechanistic capabilities of macro-changes (http://www.discovery.org...). The answer to your question of how so many can misinterpret the evidence is actually quite simple. Lets say you are a young Richard Dawkins living in Northamptonshire, England attending a school which teaches only the theory of evolution as the explanation for all living organisms today. As you learn, you naturally have questions which unsurprisingly your Sunday school teacher is unprepared to answer. As you mature, you begin to realize church teaches "bible stories" whereas public school teaches "science." Since in the case of Dawkins the church actually accepts evolution, there is no reason to reject it. But when he begins studying in college and the university, surely it is here where he should have rigorously scrutinized the theory especially at the point of its mechanistic power for macro-changes. Had he done this he would have found that Neo-Darwinian evolution fails, but he would have also been ostracized by his peers and colleagues for taking such a position. So that is the answer to you question: a one-sided education, and peer-pressure. But let us consider your reliance upon natural selection for your acceptance of naturalism a little more carefully. I must first point out that you did not address my statement from round 2, "Natural selection only works to select from what is already present in the genome, it does not and cannot add anything new. Unless you cite a mechanism which demonstrably can change a scale into a feather over time, your whole argument is invalid." You have not addressed this crucial point. Since you are arguing for morality based on naturalism, surely you must provide a working model in which we can base our acceptance of naturalism? Let me remind you of your statement, "Our search for naturalistic explanations finds solace in Darwin's mechanism of natural selection." No evolutionist understanding of biology, genetics, etc. would make such a statement. Natural selection is not the singular mechanism required for evolution. While your argument is about morality, since you made this part of your argument, you must provide demonstrable support for naturalistic explanation. Reciprocal Altruism Let me spell this out for you clearly because I fear it might be so simple as to easily glance over it. You argued for "reciprocal altruism," not altruism alone. This necessitates the restriction to scenarios in which there will be a direct reciprocation. With that said let us move one. You say, "I invite my opponent to recognise how these altruistic traits could evolve into the basic principles that we accommodate today: love your children, be charitable and act with integrity." Inviting me to recognize your position is tantamount to asking me to read into your argument the evidence which is not there. Answer this for me and you will have made a big stride in the way of providing support for your argument, how could 'these altruistic traits' evolve into the basic principals we accommodate today? Morality in Survival You concede to my point that morality is subject to one's opinion without an objective moral standard, yet you still do not provide any support for how an intuitive human morality can derive from natural selection. You also did not answer my question, "Why should survival be good?" In fact, why do animals strive for survival at all? In a naturalist perspective it doesn't make much sense, but in a biblical creationist perspective it does. God created animals which would, ". . .breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth" (Genesis 8:17). Problems with Relativism You say, "Who is to say that Hitler was wrong in exterminating the Jews? I appeal to my empathy in matters like these." You cannot appeal to a moral judgment to explain morality. Empathy cannot be an answer to the question unless you are implying a certain moral response as a derivative of your empathetic cognition. You say, "Over the centuries of human civilisation, we have developed ideas of equality and justice." What ideas? The "ideas" America was founded on are derived from the Bible, so I hope you are not referring to these. You make these statements and yet provide no support for them. The fact that you have some kind of response to my rebuttals does not equate to providing support for your defense. For example, if you say God cannot exist because of x, and I say well God does exist because of y, I have not addressed x and therefore have not supported my defense. But you don't even provide y, you just make unsupported statements. Your most telling statement is when you say, "Thus, we are guided by our moral conscience. Due to shared objectives in natural selection, it is not surprising that our moral principles are similar to those in our culture." Moral conscience! Now you are admitting to a moral conscience? But of course you state this conscience is derived from natural selection, yet again, you do not provide any support. As stated before the Bible gives a perfectly sound reason for our moral intuitions: we are made in the image of God, and His law has been written in our heart, as our conscience bears witness to it. Conclusion As stated before there was no confusion on the definition of "sound." You have refuted nothing. I have already provided coherent rebuttals against your relativistic morality derived from natural selection. I believe there are better arguments for your position of which even I can think of, but based solely on what you provided, we cannot reasonably, logically, or rationally conclude that naturalism is a sound explanation for our morality (or moral conscience as you say). I hope you recognize the absence of support in your argument and provide some for which I may address, else we must concede that you cannot demonstrably address the resolution. Thanks :)