The Christian bible and god are responsible for the presence of morality

Sadly my opponent has once again waived their opportunity to provide a rebuttal to my arguments, and indeed to try to fortify their own stance, given that they have forfeited yet again. As agreed, in light of this being the last round, I will provide no new points and will instead reiterate points previously made. To recap, the premise of this argument from my stance was that the christian bible and christian god are not responsible for a persons moral compass given that, as emphasized before, there is no deed, deemed good by the masses, which cannot be achieved through purely secular means. I invited my opponent to provide just one example which would defy my point but was met only with silence. In an attempt to secure his stance, my opponent listed horrific acts which have taken place in christian minority countries - acts which I also hold to be atrocious - but this was as far my opponents argument went. Much of his efforts were spent trying to tarnish my character and twist my words, erroneously stating that my 'so called' facts were incorrect. I then provided sources as a response to these claims but my opponent forfeited. I made the obvious and vital point that in order to truly gauge whether the christian bible and god are responsible for the presence of morality, it was utterly insufficient, and I suspect in this debate intellectually dishonest on the part of Pro, to neglect looking to christian majority countries also. With this in mind, I provided pure facts regarding one of the most christian nations in the world - America - I provided facts regarding one of the most muslim countries in the world - Indonesia - and I provided facts for secular states too. All three of these things must be looked at to complete the picture. This is a type of debate in which facts are most important - I merely used America and it's violent crime statistics to highlight that my opponents stance is wrong - a fact which I have already mentioned. I held these up to other countries and provided an obvious conclusion - one which is surely undeniable in both the eyes of a theist and an atheist. The conclusion is this - based on overwhelming facts and figures, christianity is clearly not needed in order to have a well tuned sense of right and wrong. Indonesia is a muslim majority country - it's violent crime rates are well below that of America. Even Syria, which my opponent referenced in an attempt to fortify his stance, is statistically far safer to live in than America with regard to violent crime. The fact of the matter is this - the statistics I provided, the sources of which are there for all to see, completely annihilate my opponents stance. Unless my opponent were to demonstrate a brazen display of deceit, even he could not deny the obvious conclusions my rebuttals show. My previous points can be viewed so I will spare any readers from further repetition. I am of the honest and sincere opinion that my opponent has failed to satisfy the burden of proof which is inherited from taking a stance such as his. The facts are there, in black and white, and it is these facts which strengthen my stance while simultaneously eroding my opponents. I would briefly ad that I did address the christian bible in my last round but had I neglected this, it would not have lessened the strength of my argument by the smallest degree. As the debate proceeded, my opponents stance became more and more unstable until finally it crumbled. I have debated honestly, attempting to provide an informative approach so justify and fortify my stance. As the debate proceeded, my opponent resorted to acts of literary treachery in order to slate my character and drum up dislike for me. The emphasis should always have remained on the topic of debate at hand, a thing which I endeavoured to uphold at all times. It has been an interesting and enjoyable experience to have participated in this debate.