Morality MUST be objective.

In response, I will simply show how each and every phrase of his short response is either fallacious, untrue, irrelevant, or any combination of the three. FIRST: "My opponents argument rests solely on the post-modern premise that we may not 'know' anything. " My opponent is attempting to argue that my argument rests on a premise that is somehow unjustified. 1. Whether or not a premise is "post modern" has nothing to do with its truth value, making this statement logically useless in one way. 2. My argument never suggests that "we may not know anything", my argument includes the notion that what my opponent claims to "know" is unjustified and illogical, making this statement logically useless in a cumulative total of two ways. 3. My argument does not consist of just that one premise. It also shows how the entire structure of my opponent's argument is flawed, bringing the total for this single phrase to be logically useless in three different ways. As a blanket comment, this was not a "post-modern premise that we may not 'know' anything. " This is an ancient philosophy stating that what we claim to know, we should give justification for. My opponent is simply trying to confuse and mislead the audience. What I request is simple: Prove to me that Mother Theresa's morality is more valid than Hitler's morality in an objective manner, and you win. SECOND: "it is not an established premise that Mother Theresa's morality was more valid. " "Is this a true statement? " "Do YOU (the reader/voter) agree with it? " Logical Fallacy: Argumentum Ad Populum . http://en.wikipedia.org... This is the flawed argument that somehow, what a large group of people deem to be correct, must be correct. In matters of morality, this can be confusing. However, do not let my opponent mislead you. My opponent is not trying to show the justification of a moral rule using popularity. He is trying to show that an OBJECTIVE MORALITY exists just because people will believe in one thing. Obviously, even if the entire audience believes that Mother Theresa was more moral than Hitler, it would not mean that Mother Theresa is OBJECTIVELY more moral than Hitler, it would only mean that Mother Theresa is overwhelmingly more SUBJECTIVELY moral than Hitler. Thus, this argument completely and totally fails in every single way. THIRD: "Do YOU wish to exist in a reality where we do not KNOW that Mother Theresa's morality is ABOVE Adolf Hitler's? " Three things wrong with this one. It might be confusing because this is a loaded question in which my opponent combines several flawed statements and phrases it in a biased manner. Let us reduce it down to the constituents. 1. Mother Theresa's morality is above Adolf Hitler's 2. Kleptin's proposition entails that we do not KNOW this truth 3. The Audience has a choice whether or not to exist in the reality that #2 describes Please note that when broken down, all three of the constituent notions are completely and totally false. For #1, this is begging the question as it assumes an objective morality. For #2, it is a loaded question based on #1 and it is a strawman misinterpretation of my argument, (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) which has nothing to do with whether or not one is more moral than the other. My argument is that since my opponent's argument hinges on that flawed assumption, and since he has no justification for that assumption, his argument fails. For #3, it is obviously false and a continuation of Argumentum Ad Populum. What the audience WISHES to believe has nothing to do with what is concretely true or false. I can WISH to believe that $1,000,000 is in my bank account, but no amount of wishing will make that so. FOURTH: "Do YOU wish to believe that we KNOW that we cannot know? (do you wish to believe an ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION? )" Several things wrong with this one. The first is obviously the "wishing" part, which was covered above. The second is the notion that my argument somehow shows that "we know that we cannot know" and that this is an absolute contradiction. We do not need to beat a dead horse, so we can skip the "Wish" part. 1. My opponent is making a strawman argument in which he completely misinterprets my argument and attacks that misnterpretation instead of my actual argument. I have not stated anywhere that "we know that we cannot know", it is simply something that my opponent fantasized and decided to pretend to be true. 2. There is no contradiction about "knowing that we cannot know" because in this debate, there are only a few issues in which a lack of knowledge interferes with the debate. The first is my inability to understand why my opponent keeps making the same logical fallacies over and over again. The second is my opponent's lack of knowledge regarding the morality of Mother Theresa and Hitler. If he wants to list it as a premise, why can he not show us why this premise is correct in a logically valid way? On a side note, there are many ways you can know that you cannot know. I cannot know what the future brings. Is this a complete contradiction? I cannot know for certain what that other person is thinking unless he tells me. Is this an absolute contradiction? No, my opponent is just making up invalid arguments from strange tangents. FIFTH: "So, IF we believe that Mother Theresa's morality is higher than Hitler's then in WHAT sense is it higher UNLESS there is a universal standard for it to be closer or further away from? IF her morality is subjectively above his then it must be closer to the ideal OBJECTIVE morality. " My opponent's argument here is that subjective morality necessitates objective morality. In essence, I am making such a good case for subjective morality that he is trying to blur the lines between subjective and objective in order to earn votes off my my own work. Let us examine his last statement as a syllogism: 1. MT's morality > AH's morality. 2. We can only say this with a standard. 3. Therefore, a universal standard exists. This is a non sequitor fallacy that bears semblance to the fallacy of the undistributed middle. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic) Point #3 does not follow from point #2. Point #1 adequately shows that a standard must exist, but how does my opponent leap from "standard" to "universal standard"? Through a logical fallacy. There is absolutely no way that my opponent can justify that every standard is a universal standard. The answer to his question can simply be that a difference exists in his mind between MT's morality and AH's morality, and that many people share this opinion. This satisfies his proof in that there is a collection of individual standards, but it does not show a universal standard. Thus, my opponent's conclusion is unjustified and fallacious. SIXTH: "Therefore morality MUST be objective. " I don't believe I need to comment too much on this. My opponent has not commented on a single point I have brought up, has not denied the multitude of logical fallacies I have discovered, has not bothered to defend his points, and ignored all of my work in favor of making more logically fallacious points. This last quote is obviously unfounded and unjustified. My opponent has no valid arguments, I have made plenty of counterpoints and supporting points for my side. The resolution is negated. I look forward to my opponent's response.