Morality is determined by the individual

We Accept: That MORALITY exists, (However we are trying to come to a conclusion on what determines it.) That logic EXISTS and is self evident. However just because we both believe in logic does not make my opponent true. my oppoenet and I differ on the existence of free will. I will mostly refer to my opponents summary and address important arguments. "1)Ideas like morality can be tested" It is apparent that there are logical methods used to test morality. BUT this does not refute my argument since in my argument I focus that one will not come to a point where the Theories of MORALITY become a fact. When two people use the Socratic Method they will argue because the two argue it will only strengthen each person’s point more. In the words of Dale Carnegie (Famous writer on the subject on how to influence people) "Arguements establish nothing other that each other's belief in their point" So what it the purpose of arguments? to sway an audience to your belief. In summary when two people use the socratic method they normally will not come to a consensus except for premises the will not come to a solid "FACT" between the two. So yes Morality and literal ideas may be tested but they cannot be "factually tested" as in one may come to a point were there is a consensual agreement of a fact that could be logically be held and not be defeated. For something to be a fact it must be accepted by nearly everybody and be indisputably the case. ALSO MY argument still stands since my opponent DROPPED that MORALITY is a PART of PHILOSPHY thus proving there cannot be a concrete fact about morality. Any further statements other than summaries should be considered a new argument and be thrown since it would be impossible to refute these new arguments "2)The above holds true as long as logic is held as self-evident that it’s the same for all" CR3 I have said nothing against being tested, it is factually tested were it becomes an indisputable fact through testing. Logic is self evident if it is correct. Flowing straight from axioms to premise and to correct conjectures. "3)I only argued morality as not existing as a consequence to “if” it were not objective" CR3 Alrighty then it is agreed morality exists I am sorry for any slip ups on my behalf "4)I’d be willing to prove you are not moral by your own moral standards." 4 things. 1. You asked what is my belief here it is : "Objectivism" 2. Make another debate topic Christianity vs objectivism to further solve this part of the debate 3. What Con is actually trying to do is the logical fallacy of Ad homienm (is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it- Wikipeida) He is trying to defeat me and sway you by proving I am not moral to myself and trying to use that for his position. 4.People don’t change their ideas whimsy like- no one normally goes from republican to democrat in a day its possible but it takes a lot to shape a persons belief. It is a proven fact people have the ability to choose ideas (Round 2 statement and logic has gone unrefuted) "Pretty much everyone when questioned will say lying is wrong, and stealing. And then they will admit they have lied and even taken little things." CR3 Now this is the Fallacy of hasty generalization since my opponent has looked over the fact that the group questioned could believe lying and stealing is moral and there are people who find it moral to steal and lie. What if the group questioned were members of the CIA they would find it moral to steal and lie since they are protecting their country. So not very one is going to say that. Also with all the different philosophical codes (Nihilism, utilitarianism ect.) it is possible that the action may or may not be moral to people in the group based on their philosophy. "5)I don’t think anyone believes you have never done anything bad in your life. All people have" CR3 Alright he mentions bad in reference to his morality. Again its a proven fact that people have their own perceptions of morality. Just start reading existing philosophies: Utilitarianism Nihilism ect. "6)Animal instincts corrupts and enslaves our choices so the “free-ness” of your choices are not self-evident"CR3 1. Humans don't have instincts, for evidence look here: http://aynrandlexicon.com... 2.On the subject of date rape you have only proven that at one time the endo crincines in ones brain can be off balance. This rarely ever happens and only happens to this scale under intoxication of some substance. So unless your implying that every human is under the date rape drug right now this doesn’t defeat free will. Also I will use one of my un-refuted points right here. “All humans are conscious of their actions”PR2 First this has gone undefeated second to be conscious of one’s actions one must first be conscious. This attack establishes nothing against my case or the resolution. 3. Adrenaline does not affect the brains choices. Evidence here: http://www.wisegeek.com... Adrenihaline is a chemical that our brain developed and can be imitated. The article never states that this actually alters the brain’s sense of choice. It just raises awareness by initiating certain bodily functions. Any after affects is the individuals own perception and is subject to what they think. Also were not all pumping adrenaline through our bodies so even if this argument falls we still have freewill not in times of stress. 4. According to “virtue ethics” when a value is gained or taken away your body replies with an emotion. An example would be that someone values their life and another pulls a gun on him. The first person feels “fear” So his mood is fearful. So according to virtue ethics we derive emotions from what we value or our morality. We are free to choose which values we accept thus our “mood” Is determined by our values and our values are determined by our morality. Thus creating free will since both values and morality are determined by the individual. 5. To have logic one must have free will. Since we have both accepted logic. We both must believe we are using logic. Logic is thinking about which answer is correct so we decide based on the evidence what is correct. Since we decide we have choice and choice equals freewill 7 and 8 let me restate some things. In my world good and bad are determined by the individual. That means that if they say it’s bad to break their morals and they do. Then sub consciously they have changed their mind or the circumstance are different. Like I said "I will never kill." If someone tries to kill me and I have a gun I will kill him since I value my life. This does not mean I have changed my mind it just means an unforseen circumstance has come to view. I valued my life before the soemone tried to take it away I just had to have a moral comprimise since my life is important to me. "9)The all perfect supernatural God can be the only legit source of what morality is." CR3 My opponent dropped my second contention in round 2 in that it states that it is up to the individual to accept a god's morality. I don’t accept this god's morality thus morality is determined by the individual. Also just because it is your morality does not make it a standard SINCE MY OPPOENET NEVER REFUTED contention 2 and instead talked about how we don’t follow morality ourselves this point is defeated. God does not determine morality we do by free will. My opponent has dropped any attempt to say that society influence morality so that cannot be brought up within the next round. And since statement 1 was never refuted it proves that well have free choice and the ability to choose morality. I have addressed all arguments line by line and left my opponent with no case to stand on