God is not Required for Moral Reasoning

KANT'S categorical imperative is basically a trump card, im sorry, if the pro uses it, then the con has no way to rebutt it. First of all, i must say, this is my best debate (only my third debate) on this website. Therefore, i must thank the pro for that. >>>>Okay, so where did utility, subjectivity, convention, and the beliefs BEHIND THESE IDEAS come from? Religion is a massive determining factor in morality. Also, atheists are actually picking up ideas of morality from other people, who get their ideas of morality from religion. Imagine this morality determining process as a giant, winding cycle. My opponent clearly looks only at one part of the big picture. >>>>Okay, so where did considering utility come from? From God and religion, morality is rooted. I myself am Hindu. In our "church" we learn all about morality and what is right/wrong to do. What is a sin and what is not. Every religion has a way of determining what sins are. And, sins fall under the category of morality, seen as the opposite of what is moral. >>>>My opponent says to appeal to ignorance. I would like him to clarify more on this, but in the meantime drop it because of the confusing wording. However, i will still do my best to rebut this. So, I would like my opponent to name even one school that teaches morality (public, not private or religious, since most students attend public schools.) My statement clearly is not ridiculous. If morality does not come from god, then where does it come from. My opponent never even addresses this question, so you can use it against him. AND, on top of that, my opponent never attacks that schools are bread based system, so cross apply that to this argument to support this. >>>>Now, my opponent mocks me by saying that it's KANT, not kont. Okay, i understand that i misspelled it. But still, that does not attack my point, so extend that. So, we now know that no child will google Kant's categorical imperative, and since morality is determined from childhood, the only thing at that age that preaches morality is religion, and in essence, god. >>>>Ad nauseum fallacy is basically saying that this is an overused argument. I already rebutted the argument this defeated the claim. So basically, extend this, and this is showing that religion is the basis of morality, and god is the basis of religion. So, indirectly, god is the basis of morality. "Another excerpt from one subject's interview: I: Should the rule about stealing be followed? S: Yes, or else we will go to hell. And all of those will know, and those who are on earth already know that hell is a bad place. There's fire and brimstone and you could die down there! And everybody that goes there, they know that they are a sinful person. I: Suppose all the ministers decided to drop the rule about stealing so that there was no rule about stealing. would that be all right? S: No. I: Suppose the people of another religion don't have a rule about stealing. Is that all right?) S: No. I: If God hadn't said anything about stealing one way or the other, would it be okay to steal then? S: No" So, just a bit before my opponent had said that just becuase we don't know one's system, we believe ours to be right. Well, this excerpt from my opponent's case is like the core, his argumentation revolves around it and so does his case. Look over his case and rebuttals and you will see that. So, his argument on my case rebutted his own argument. Therefore, drop his argument, and his rebuttal. Now, basically, i destroyed the core of his case. That is like taking the nucleus out of the cell. If a cell has no nucleus, it will die, and the organelles will go haywire. Apply that analogy to his case, and its core. So, just drop the case, since he has nothing to link it back to. My two sentence case remains unattacked, so extend that. Therefore, you must be negating at the end of the day, becuase if my opponent agrees with my case, since he fails to rebut, then he abandons his own case. Reasons to negate for this round: 1) I highly doubt that a six-year old is going to be Googling Kant's categorical imperative. (which was extended) 2) Therefore, religion is the basis of morality, and god is the basis of religion. Therefore, God must be used to determine morality. (extended as well) 3) my opponent resorts to mockery in order to try to make me think badly of my own case. So, use this as an independent voter and basically, this is another reason not to vote for him: rudeness/mockery. 4) my very short case is left unattacked. """"now, i will go on to debate my best against why god is not needed to determine morality. This is a epic argument that is hardly debatable, but it still is the least bit controversial, so therefore by this argument, the AFF is given a chance to debate agaisnt this statement: Morality is rooted from religion, and God is the basis of religion.""" (people are supposed to rebutt points one at a time. a voter should not have to think, and if he/she did not, he/she can clearly see that he does not cross-apply his argument to my case, thus making it seem unattacked.) For all of these reasons, I urge you to negate, resolved: "God is not Required for Moral Reasoning."