Morality is Grounded in God.

1. "It is not a fact to you as you may not be familiar with the case for the soul so I will be willing to educate you. I did say that for the purposes of this debate we will assume that Humans have souls. " == The topic of whether souls exist is still in debate today. It is not because im not familiar with the case for soul. The earth is round regardless of whether im familiar with it or not. And did you say "we will"? NO you will. The existence of a soul is again unverifiable nonsense from your side. I can claim that there's a unicorn flying above your head in another dimension. Is it verifiable? No. As you can see, Stuff unverifiable is not worth bringing to a debate. Tell me a way to verify the existence of a soul. 2. "Any sort of difference in morality is based on a factual error. So yes Theism can be the basis for morality. " == well, Difference in morality of human is also based on factual error as you claimed earlier, So Yes human can also be the basis for morality 3. "No Theistic oughts are not different religious oughts are" === Again unverifiable nonsense. Name me some theistic oughts and some religious oughts and show me how they are different or the same. You see, You make claim on stuff that you don't even have access to. 4. "I did refute the argument by showing how you mix up religion and theism. So no your argument does not stand. Voters, Please take note! " == the distinction is irrelevant until you show me some theistic oughts and some religious oughts and how they are different or the same. 5. "No, I am making sure that the voters take note of your arguments which have been refuted and thus will lead to a sound victory for me in this debate. " == You're not thinking in perspective here. Ofc from your biased POV, You have all the victory. We're seeking unbiased opinions from 3rd person like the voters 6. "I did show how prescribed oughts can be verifiable using the argument from moral reactions" === Really? But you still maintain that its ok to kill children in war? What about the moral reactions of the parents of the child in that case? Is that enough to make it wrong for you? 7. " Then one "ought" to not misrepresent another's argue or must concede when their position is defeated. Thus an Epistemic Fact is that one ought to be Intellectually Honest which ties into Moral Honesty and that is how we can say that Epistemic and Moral Facts are nearly identical. " == You seem to be misusing words a bunch here. Be sure to distinguish between fact and consensus. Fact are verifiable. Consensus are not. 8. "I would invite my opponent to remember that our Engineering systems have changed since the discovery of a round earth" ==ok how. Before the discovery of a round earth, People were building houses for thousands of years, This shows round earth does not effect house building. And you said you threw a ball where earth curvature had to be taken into account right? 9. "Okay. I not really a sports player so if you see me on the news it may be for something else. Such as my political ambitions. "== one thing that pisses me off greatly is Pro's inability to make connections between 2 statements. You didn't understand what I really meant here did you. You have to throw really really far for earth curvature to be taken into account. If you could throw that far then you would be a supper human? 9. "Constant gravitational acceleration when did we talk about this? How does this have anything to do with the topic of discussion? " == you seem bad at making connection. People behave as though it is constant has nothing to do with its true nature. 10. "What I am saying here is that we didn't make what the laws prescribe we just discovered them just like we didn't make want the laws of logic describe. " == We make the laws. I never said we make what the laws describe. We make the laws to describe patterns. Just like patterns on an iq test have various different explanation for them. When there are different laws for one pattern on an IQ test, We make the laws, Not discover it. 11. "I said that he made the symphony. " == ok, Then what's wrong with saying "he simply discovered the particular arrangement of notes"? You see make and discover are not MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You can use them interchangeably. 12. "We do not know the standard " == then how do we know we're moving closer to it. 13. " The point is that using rationality we have realized objectively prescribed oughts that exists" == How do I verify if an "ought" objectively exists? 14. "e know that a standard exists and that we can decipher it through reason " === We know? I know something if its existence is verifiable. You havent provide a set of criteria for me to verify the existence of moral realism. "My Opponent misunderstands my arguments, Goes off topic and forgets that in a formal debate opponents present arguments and try to refute each other's arguments otherwise known as the Socratic Method. My opponent still hasn't defeated my arguments and can do better. " === It's obvious that you would think that from your POV. Well. Every sentence my opponent spouts out is inverifiable. He'll probably say this is not a science but verifiability is not unique to science. An unverifiable statements is just garbage. I can propose that there is an undetectable ghost flying above your head but as long as there's no way to know if that's true or not, People won't spend it a 2nd thought. I've many time ask for criteria for verification but got none every time. And may my opponent stops using cheap tricks such as telling voters what to think. . . . I hope voters will see thru Pro's manipulative tricks