You cannot soundly derive morality from 'god'.

My opponent misunderstands his own topic which simply states "You cannot soundly derive morality from god." Thus, a few observations: 1. The resolution states that you cannot derive morality- look to the un-argued definition in the first con speech which states that morality is simply a doctrine or system of morals. This means that as long as a supreme deity provided for a moral code, you vote con. For example, if any god said that is was moral to kill innocent people, this is still fulfilling the requirements of the topic, and thus you still vote con. This then negates any possible offense that my opponent tries to make off of his "Christian god morals bad" arguments. 2. The resolution states "from god" implying specificity, not "from a god" implying generality. Therefore this debate must be framed in the sense of a specific deity. My opponent says that "The religious have always found ways in starting conflicts where there were none." as opposed to every other monarch who has always had just cause to start conflict??? This is not a valid argument and should thus be rejected from today's debate. My opponent then goes on to explain "you can ******* die in North Korea and leave, not in this barbaric myth, where once you die, that's when the fun truly begins." Yet why does my opponent believe this? This very belief that the work of "God" is untrue allows for my opponents individual moral code. So even by rejecting God, my opponent is proving how god allows for the development of my opponents moral code, thus proving why you should vote for the con. My opponent then provides three criteria I must meet in order to win: 1) History 2) The holy texts 3) Statements made by their leaders. (My opponent now tries to place an extra non-topical burden on me by forcing me to prove how religion is morally right while the topic only says "Morality"- cross apply the definition provided in my first con, So I well meet his burdens, but even if I do not, my opponent cannot gain any ground from them) 1. History- The fact the human race is still in existence proves divine intervention. For example, it is human nature to want what your neighbor has. Therefore, following that logic, the human race would have long ago destroyed itself through violence without a moral code (which the con is providing for but the pro isn't) 2. The holy texts- You can look to my first con and see how the holy texts promote a code of morality. 3. Statements made by their leaders- Leaders are persons, not a divine entity, and are thus non-topical in today's debate. You can once again look to the first con round in which I state several arguments that go dropped throughout today's debate, including my thesis and substructure which state: We can see that God is inherent in the concept of morality for two basic reasons: 1. An individuals morality is derived from god. 2. God places a check on morality. Please note that because my opponent doesn't speak on either of these points, he must be in accordance and agreement with them. So a brief overview of why you should vote con: 1. My opponent attempts to change the topic to a generic god, when the topic implies specificity 2. My opponent argues that religious thinking sometimes results in bad things happening, yet so does non-religious thinking. 3. The only thing the con must prove (following the definitions in the first con round) is that God provides for a moral code (be it good or bad) and the con has done this profusely. 4. My opponent basically dropped my entire case 5. My opponents provides no alternative as to where exactly are we going to find a moral code if not from a religious deity. One can also cross apply my first speech impacts of a perfect society VS my opponents descent into a state of nature and anarchy here. Even if you don't listen to any of the previously stated voters, we can look to the con case and see that even if an individual rejects god's moral code, or if an individual diverges from or supersedes Gods moral code or if as my opponent says "Human solidarity has always transcendent the morality of religion," God still provided the fundamental foundation for the creation of a moral code, thus justifying a con ballot. Thank You