Ethical development must continue into adulthood

"You introduce a distinction between ethics and…" I introduce nothing, Pro. I only started by quoting your round 1 definition, though translated into layman's terms. In round 1 you put ethics is development of capacities for moral choices, and morality is the actual meet of the matter in that particular questions are what's important (exp: ‘would shoplifting that be moral?') This round I read you refer to this as a ‘discussion' and never as a debate. But, this is no discussion, it's a debate. The difference that makes is that in a discussion it's okay to go back and rephrase your statements however you want to clarify you position or thought. In a debate, the definitions you give in round 1 is the legalistic wording of what you said, and you can only rephrase what you said to make it more clear if that legalistic round 1 wording still holds 100% true with the rephrasing. So you see in a discussion its okay in round two to go "(2b.) I do claim there is learning occurring in moral and ethical development but the objects of study are different." Because you're just telling me what you really believe and that's the purpose of ‘discussing' but in this debate you clearly stated round 1 that ‘ethical development' has nothing to do with "learning maxims or commandments for one's choices when dealing in society" and "not of an intellectual nature." That as our debate definitions for ‘ethical' and we can see that legalistically from that ‘ethical development' being distinctly not ‘moral development' can have nothing to do with ‘learning'. Learning must involve those ‘maxims, commandments', or some kind of particular resolution(s) one can walk away with. Learning is ‘of an intellectual nature' So development that involves learning of any kind is ‘moral development' as so clearly defined in round 1 (if the learning is even in the ball park of being related to this debate, you could learn stuff that is of morality. It just cant be learning in ‘ethics' as far as this debate is concerned). So if when Pro's resolution says ‘ethical development' it can't legalistically be referring to the learning of something, Then what can it mean by ‘development'? Obviously he has to mean the growth in the ability (capacity) to ‘learn' in the first place. Now you may be thinking ‘the capacity to learn exist only as an absolute, either you can learn or you cant' but because of the round 1 definitions we will just have to fly with the idea that the ability to learn is something that can ‘develop.' I accepted this debate because once I thought that through I realized that when referring to learning morality that's not that hard to see. Perhaps a child can learn a moral lesson about ‘lying' and not be able to learn even with the best teacher the morality of murder and war killings. It's easy to get a 1st grader to understand how lying is wrong or even what special exceptions could exist for that rule but quite often I find that at that stage in their ‘development' they always think ‘murder is murder that's all there is too it, doesn't matter why" but as they ‘develop' they get the ability to think in the first place that maybe not all killing can be called murder. Some may only be called ‘sacrifice' or ‘execution' or ‘accidental manslaughter'. Anyway, I do not believe my opponent realized he had restricted himself that much given the cases he was trying to argue last round, So I figure now that I clarified that I should give him a fresh start at trying to rebut my round 1 argument again now that he should understand what he defined ethical development as in round 1 (something not of an intellectual nature in laymen's terms means no learning components). Just 3 more things though before I let Pro proceed with doing that. 1st) A Clarification on the Moon analogy: The reality of the analogy is about is never meant to be taken as a slave to the analogy itself. For example I might say "God is the author of the book that is the universe" as an effort to explain him as creator and designer like an author is of a book. I could have just as easily said ‘architect to blueprints' and said just as much. But if try and make reality slave to the analogy you might say "If God is author then he controls the characters in the book." If these weren't analogies but talking about literal books then that second one would be a necessary fact you could conclude if the first is true. But as analogies though they don't contradict one may be true while the other may not. The Moon analogy was not used to say people's ethical development follows the same phases as the moon so theirs no need to rebut the idea as if I had argued it. The limits of what I explained with the Moon analogy was the concept of a full/complete/whole stage and that if something is at a complete stage then the only thing that could happen to it that would logically count as ‘development' would need to be development in reverse. 2nd) The World: I apologize for not going out of my way to define that. Yes it is broad, but no I did not mean ‘society' or any group of individual's problems when I said ‘worlds problems.' I suppose I should have ‘life's problems' but that just sounded wrong as I also don't mean all of life's problems. Just the ones that are unique to only having when you become of a ‘grown-up' and have to live in the ‘real world' the world where you pay taxes, worry about insurance, get a job, ect. The Worlds problems I was thinking about what adults have to face can be simple as things like ‘is it okay to put volunteer stuff I did for free as work experience on my rï¿½sumï¿½?' to things as curious as ‘is it okay to use my companies dollar for dollar program to donate to the Hokies football stadium so I can have a Gold Pass for the best seats on Friday's games their when I personally only gave half of what it should take for them to give that too me?" to questions like "Is it okay for me to sell my food stamps for money to buy cigarettes" These are problems you honestly don't have to put up with as a kid. You don't have to care enough to answer them. But one day they will become your problems and your just left wondering what to do. Those are the problems I refer when I say ‘the world's problems. 3rd) Though generally my opponents arguments this round are irrelevant cause they all seem to be addressing everything I have said as if ethical development had something to do with learning anything, there is one thing Pro argued that does still apply regardless of that. I ought to supply a consequence of what will happen if the next generation were to not develop to the complete stage in ethics by adulthood. What would happen if they did not gain the ability to learn stuff about morality as adults, or totally gain the ability to make moral choices? What if adults could be said to only partially be able to do that, partially have the power to learn the right thing or to make the right choices? If that were the case then adults couldn't be expected to learn or know anything about morality at all could they? How could you send a man to jail for killing his wife if it can just be written off as his lack of 'development'. "he couldn't have known better and still cant as he still has room to ethically develop" When your an adult the time is up for talking about making moral choices, you actually have to make them now. You're making your decisions now not your parents. It's okay to make mistakes and make the wrong choices sometimes, but if you haven't developed enough to learn from them by now… you're in trouble.