Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

== RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS == 1. Con's first question asked if I knew any philosophers who espoused secular humanism. I forgot to respond to this question in the last round, but here is an extensive list: Jeremy Bentham, Albert Camus, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Albert Einstein, Friedrich Engels, Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, etc [1]. The supposition that I am the only secular humanist in existence is clearly null and void. Moreover, even if only 1 person advocated it, it wouldn't necessarily make it wrong according to the appeal to majority fallacy [2]. 2. The Bible is where Christians get their morality from, so one would expect they follow it. Saying they pick and choose what they're willing to follow only demonstrates their inability to remain consistent in values - a contention actually in favor of my side of the resolution. Even if you apply only Christian law, every single contention I mentioned regarding prioritizing secular ethics in previous rounds still applies -- including the fact that Con is only referencing Christian ethics and not RELIGIOUS ethics as a whole. 3. Con says "Aristotle thought he was using logic" but I pointed out how the concept of logic and the way we apply it HAD NOT EVEN BEEN CONCEIVED YET in Aristotle's time, meaning we have no reason to accept that logic failed in that instance. Aristotle used reasoning but did not apply the traditional standards and rules of logic to his thought process. This point is negated. 4. Con says I have to prove "every secular philosophy" without a doubt. This is a completely non-sensical demand considering the ONLY philosophy secularism espouses is using reason, ethics, and justice as the basis of morality and decision making instead of a deity. I have proven why this is a superior standard throughout this debate. 5. Con asked me if it were possible if any religious books were true. I responded accordingly by saying it was possible but irrelevant. Con ignored this. 6. Con asked me how I can prove god's desires were not accurately portrayed. I proved that even if god existed, his/her intentions were unknown. Con completely ignored and skipped this number which by his logic means he concedes to my superior reasoning :) 7. Con asked me if religious ethics were oppressive today, and I explained and proved that they were. In response he randomly tried to negate evolution (a futile attempt... lol and nonetheless entirely irrelevant). You'll notice he never responded to the relevant issues here where religious ethics are used to oppress people, including stifling a woman's choice regarding abortion, the choice for homosexuals to get married, etc. (There is no number 8... whoops!) 9. Con asked me if secular ethics were just. He then responds using ad hominem (which is bad conduct - note to voters) and writes, "You don't seem to understand ethics very well, do you? The point is that you wouldn't KILL 9,999 people to PREVENT the deaths of 10,000. I highlight the verbs so my opponent can wrap her mind around this sentence." Perhaps my opponent should try to wrap HIS mind around the concept of utalitarianism, which states preventing 10,000 deaths is better than preventing only 9,999. So really, the point here is that he must defend why it is preferable to kill more people instead of less if his intention is to discredit utalitarianism. 10. Here Con simply repeated the same question as #4. I can simply refer him to my response to his #4 question considering it asks the same thing, and I don't want to waste character space repeating it. == RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS == 1. Con's first point is, "If you're religious, you shouldn't be a hypocrite and vote against your religion. If you're not religious, then your religious ethics aren't going to get in the way of secular ones, are they?" This is completely negated considering the Constitution i.e. the basis for our laws and political policy specifically states that people should indeed make political decisions based on SECULAR rationality that people are deserving of equal rights [3, 4]. If, say, a Christian did not believe in abortion, then it's their prerogative not to get one. However if mandating that abortion be criminalized infringes upon another's right to govern their own person, then constitutional law a.k.a. the secular law our public policy is founded on stands contrary to Con's assertion. 2. Con contends that religious ethics are just as important as secular ones without explaining why meaning we have no reason to accept this claim. He then advocates Pascal's Wager: conceding to secular laws just in case god exists. However, once again it is Con's prerogative to live his life by that standard -- he hasn't proven why it's moral to impose that standard upon other individuals who might want to "take their chances." That coupled with the fact that Pascal's Wager has been criticized and refuted innumerable times makes this a pretty baseless assertion. The Atheist's Wager contends "You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him [5]. This negates Con's premise. == CONCLUSION == First, it's very obvious that my opponent did not write the arguments presented in the cross reference section and that they are in fact plagiarized from another party. Nevertheless, none of Con's cross reference arguments negate my points in any way. His reference to Dewey's Theory of Valuation makes absolutely no connection to the resolution. He states, "And yet, you can't tell others what they ought to believe or prioritize." Ironically, that stands completely contrary to Con's assertion that one ought to prioritize religious ethics thereby making this a self-defeating argument. Congratulations - you just negated your own premise. Con points out that many people consider god's law to be moral, but that does not address my concerns about prioritizing religious ethics over secular in any way. This does not even begin to address my contentions regarding not knowing which religion to follow, not being able to prove god even exists, using the government in tyrannical (unconstitutional) ways, etc. Con claims that we don't know which of the secular philosophies are right, but I've pointed out that this is irrelevant considering the concept of secular ethics does not espouse EVERY secular ideology, but rather simply advocates not basing ethics off of an innumerable, unprovable bunch of hypothetical deities. Con writes, "5-Not ethically. But the government in general is not the actor of this resolution." I don't know what "not exactly" refers to considering at #5 in the last round I simply explained how Con's plethora of hypothetical questions are irrelevant considering the universe's innumerable possibilities, and that none of the holy books are reasonable because of all the logical breaches in text. Next Con says he advocates not imposing religion but religious ethics. Of course it is still immoral to impose religious standards upon non-believers making this a moot point. == CONCLUSION == Con says my standard will cause democracy to cease, which is a completely baseless claim absolutely not supported by any of the arguments in this debate. Further he contends that we'll all go to hell, which is obviously a random (BS) claim that holds zero weight. == QUESTIONS == 1. Which religious ethics would we use, which would we discard, and why? 2. Why should the government be allowed to impose religious morality (which is tyranny) despite not being able to prove any god(s) exist let alone know what god thinks is right? == SOURCES == http://www.debate.org...