Ethical development must continue into adulthood

It seems I have been accused of perverting my opponent's original position and even doing so on purpose. I suppose I should start addressing this charge with the question about how I can say his definition is ‘clear' in round one and then a round later say I found a need to translate it into layman's terms. That's a pretty reasonable thing to be suspicious of. When I said they were ‘clear' in round one I mostly just meant ‘clear to me' witch is all that I thought was relevant at the time. I see now I was arrogant in saying that as it appears your intended meaning of ‘ethical development' was not understood by me. I say ‘mostly meant' hear because I also refer to rigid lengths of the definition that it even included the explanation of what ethical development is not (moral development) by saying its ‘clear'. I did not mean ‘clear' though to suggest that you articulated yourself in such a way that it would not go over most people's heads. Also, I am not trying to ‘gain authority' that I don't already have. Here on DDO it's pretty much customary that the person who accepts a debate challenge can hold the person who created it to the terms they showed all prospective debaters who might accept the challenge. The reason should be obvious, it's our only security in being able to appraise if a debate challenge would be at our skill level. You may have meant to give your second definition to be in juxtaposition with my ‘rehashing' but the cold truth is it also ended up being in juxtaposition with your own definition. If you honestly believe that the development we are debating over ‘can have a learning component' and ‘not be of an intellectual nature' then you are suggesting something so bizarre that I simply must demand you further explain and prove your claim of such a concept. As far as I have ever known Learning is a process of an intellectual nature. Had you included mention of the learning component with the rest of your round 1 definition I would not have accepted this debate from seeing that your terms I would have to agree to were a contradiction from the start. Now for a defense of my ‘rehashing' so that you can see I did not pervert the definition into anything you did not say. "Ethical (capacity/ability/potential to act in moral manner) development has absolutely nothing to do with anything specific (the maxims and commands of an intellectual nature) in the study of morality but only the capacity (ability/potential) to learn (develop morally so one can act in a moral manner) those things (the moral)" So you see my rehashing is only in ‘juxtaposition" with you second statements that added the intellectual aspect to ethical development when you said it included a learning component. I can see now in retrospect how I was arrogant to think you definitions clear. I was thinking they were clear because of the inclusion of defining what ethical development IS NOT, but I forgot to consider the lack of definition for what ethical development IS. You have compared its development to development of smell and taste witch is fine for an alternative to my moon description but you forgot to say what exactly what a different smell is supposed to represent in ethics. To help me and the readers further understand what you mean by ‘style' take this scenario. A man comes across an occasion where he can lie and he chooses not to. That describes the moral maxim or command for the example, now you fill in the blank and describe for me that scenario twice over with an example of different ‘style'. Next off, as to why I, Con, do not assume that continued development would mean a positive process. Because I am CON and I have the freedom to do that in this debate. You see, unlike you as the PRO in this debate, I do not have Burden of Proof like you for my assumption. If I provide alternative perspective assumptions at all they negate your having proven the resolution ‘ethical development must continue into adulthood'. That's a positive statement for a resolution so it's PRO that has Burden of Proof. Now if your assumptions where the only available for us then I would assume development must only refer a positive one without being given a reason to. But I have an alternative approach to how we would see this non-existent concept of development of the ability to develop if it did exist, so to leave my assumptions I will need more than just alternative case, It will take proof of some sort. Pro has also accused me of contradicting what the nature of an analogy is. In light of that I would like to direct his attention to this link http://changingminds.org... I really thought I explained the ‘slave to analogy' fallacy well enough to not need to source it. Perfect parallels don't exist to describe things. If an analogy had to be such a parallel we would have them likewise. But the great thing is they don't have to be, just parallel to the point we seek to describe. I brought it up last round because in round 2 some of your case was arguing against my moon analogy as if I had used it to claim further extreme similarities than I had. I just used it to show what ‘develop' means for something that is ‘full', not people have the same full lunar cycle of ability to develop morally. I am also curious about Pro taking care to point out he has never used the terminology ‘moral choices.' I can't see what difference it could possible make, even if I were this person Pro makes me out to be trying to twist what Pro has said into something else on purpose it could be to no useful end here. As far as what's relevant to this debate, using the term ‘choices' only lets you know I am referring to an application of the moral development (moral) that develops (ethical). Now if Pro hold a philosophy that our moral acts are not ‘choices' but in fact are of an autonomous nature, that's his prerogative, but the nature of the application is of no significance here as we are not debating the nature of the application but of the of the development of the applications development. My opponent accused my example of applications like getting the hokie gold pass in your companies dollar for dollar program as being ‘silly'. Silly or not the fact is men more than twice my age have told me how they don't know if its right to do than or that they know it isn't right. There claims can only be purely a moral nature as when only considering the cold logistics the choice should be clear. It's a cheaper way to get a gold pass that you want so why not? The only reason these men can have for protest has to come from a notion about how it comes off as false pretense about ones charitable heart that the dollar for dollar program was made for. That makes questioning the act a question about its morality, about if its right or wrong, if it's fits the idea of a standard of behavior. Not all things done for moralities sake are ones that you would usually consider ‘important' like killing an man if it saves others but it does not make them irrelevant to our debate. And how my everyday examples are relevant is to show how things relevant to having to act in a moral manner happen all the time. You may have heard the saying 'character is who you are when no one is around', and in a sense you end of having a new level of freedom of that nature as an adult. as a child the adults watch over you like you are there ward when it comes to acting with right character. so your character is not fully your own yet as they are always there, but your life is yours and yours alone as an adult and the moments when character will change what you do will happen everyday, in way's that look like they make huge impacts and small. the occasions to develop morally from happen non-stop as an adult, so you have to done being able to develop in the first place.