Morals are objective.

"As I said earlier, morality is concerned with the behavior if a being." I quote the above to briefly make the viewing audience aware that I am not the only one who types like he is from the Dixiland. I would also like to ask you to learn from my example that it is a myth that spell check will hide the fact that you spell like you from the South. Like my opponent I believe I shall jump around too this round as I think the 'opposite' issue must be settled first. Whether some things have opposites or not it doesn't matter. What matters is that because 'situation' morality is not the opposite of 'objective' then it does not contradict it and if it does not contradict it does not negate it. If Chaotic Morality were true then that would contradict and thus negate Objective Morality. Because ‘Situation' morality does not inherently contradict objective morality it may considered part of it. Let me ask this about the question of 'situations'. Why is it that only the 'situations' like 'killing a bug, or killing a person' are charged against the doctrine of objective morality and not the difference in the 'situation' of 'killing or lying'? It would never occur to you that morality is not objective because in some circumstances it makes you consider if its okay to lie and some to kill; Because you smart enough to see (most of you anyway) that its only a different part of the laws of morality, a different article, clause, paragraph, ect... to cover a different thing concerning the issue of morality. And the difference in lying and killing is like the difference in Articles of our moral codes of behavior. And if that does not bother us then how could it possible be worth any note that their are different clauses in this code of behavior (killing you cause I have to as opposed to killing you cause I feel like it)? My ‘bumper sticker' statement is about the complexity of real objective truths. But complex truths don't fit on bumper stickers; you would have to make a less accurate general statement to represent the objective truth. When we are taught the classic moral codes of behavior at a young age, they do this to the complex truths so that the children watching Barney & friends can understand it in a simpler form. The only justification for expecting ‘situation' to negate ‘objective' is because one must in someway still expect objective truth to be as simple as it is on Sesame Street. This is all pointing out the ‘situation' does for morality, it makes it more complex. But just because it is more complex does not mean it is less objective. So I say, once you boil down your moral statement to include all the complex clauses and sub-paragraphs made by considering situations, you will find that statement to ALWAYS be true. And if you will turn you attention to my opponents round one definition of objective you will see the capitalized defining term for that is ALWAYS. So if the moral is ALWAYS true then it is objective for this debate and the resolution is affirmed. It doesn't matter if its not a simple moral that isn't ALWAYS true. Even if I broke down and let go that's how my opponent defined objective round one (witch I under NO circumstances do) and viewed it as to mean incompatible with ‘situation' morality there is still a few problems there. And it comes back to the complexity of the moral truths. Instead of further defining "killing is wrong" to "killing is wrong when…" it can be better defined "murder is wrong." The moral became more specific without considering the situation. Killing can be defined as any action that ends the life of something else, while murder brings with it's definition an indicated intent of the heart. Thus we have to accept in light of this that the strict definition of the immoral act itself is ALWAYS immoral regardless of your ‘situation'. I call this the invisible third option, because its like answering question with to options given with a third one you where not given. "Are you going to believe what republicans believe or democrats?" 3rd Option Answer "how about the best of both". I realize up until now I have only negated opponents argument for negating the resolution, I have still yet to present a Pro argument myself. I should probably do that now. As I showed in round two, Chaotic Morality is more or less the same as no morality existing at all, so if there is any morality it must be objective (complex or simple). So a pro case for morality at all is all will be enough to support the resolution. But for this debate can we feel assured that morality does exist? Yes we can, because as you read my opponent insist we keep in mind that morality is concerned with behavior. Specifically as Cons labels morality as a 'standard' of behavior. calling it a 'law' of human behavior has been used as well in defining morality http://achristianperspectiveonlife.blogspot.com... but 'standard' 'law' and 'code' describe what we are talking about equally well. So asking is the question 'is there morality?' as all the terms have been defined and accepted in this debate by both sides is the same as asking 'is there a standard of behavior?' So is there a standard? Obviously! anyone with even a vague grasp of world history would see that there is a standard of morality or "code of decent behavior" stretching across different cultures with a relative consistency http://www.columbia.edu.... So there is a standard of morality! and it cannot be Chaotic so it must be Objective! unless off-course my opponent can provide an invisible third option I am not seeing that we have not already refuted. But I am betting he will not even if he can think of one. After only one round to present that option and no chance to defend it? That's rather a lot for any average debater to do; If I were in Cons shoes I would stick with arguing 'situation' morality as that third option even though I have shown its existence doesn't negate or contradict object morality but is encompassed by it, because with enough repetition you can make an illogical position sound correct in the face reasoning being given against it. It's a brilliant and powerful debate tactic; But all I can do to counter it is ask you, the voting reading audience, to ignore the fact that for the third time Con will repeat that I have been defending the Con position, in fact ignore the fact that I have been repetitious in any points, like how objective morality should not be expected to fit on bumper stickers. Just consider just what all the points have been given and how they seem to add up in this debate. and I do mean this debate, please do not consider points that neither of us brought up or argued for from other debates or you personal view of the subject, only from this debate. Then the fact that Con has been repetitious should not cover the true logic of the points in this debate. So to sum up this round; 1) if its not opposite, it doesn't contradict, thus doesn't negate. 2) if you boil it down to the single clause and paragraph of the law of moral behavior that applies before... applying it, you'll see its true ALWAYS. 3) It being true ALWAYS was the definition given and agreed to at the start of this debate. 4) Even if we thought the situation changes fact two, theirs always a third way to boil down the law (killing is wrong to murder is wrong) that also will apply ALWAYS even if the situation changed and we thought that meant something like Con. 5) Chaotic Morality is the same as no morality, if there is morality its objective. 6) there is clearly a standard of behavior throughout the world. So there is morality, a code of behavior. and with that I am done for Round 3.