objective morality does not exist!

Responses:>> "Justcallmetarzan does not understand the rules do not grant him a space to argue. He fails to see that it was not him to present the argument. It was suppose to be mattrodstrom, doing the debating for Justcallmetarzans side. The very fact that you see justcallmetarzan presenting an argument is against the very rules as it was not suppose to be him debating at all."This is obviously not the case, as the debate was not an open format - Izbo directly challenged me to the debate, so I have de facto permission to argue in all rounds. Why he chose to try to limit mattrodstrom from arguing in my debate space is beyon me.And as for the conduct vote, if for some reason I don't have permission to argue, then Izbo issued a nondebatable challenge, the only result of which could be the artificial inflation of his (abysmal) win record - in essence, cheating. I encourage readers to consider their conduct vote carefully here.>> "Second problem he has is he is calling my argument non-sequitur."I see that Con is not contending that his argument was also a strawman. But more importantly, how can the idea that there is a moral obligation to accord with truth and logic have any bearing on this debate?? If this relationship even exists (which it does not; I am only entertaining the issue for Izbo's diseased mind...) then we have two options: First, if I am correct, readers can choose for themselves whether to use truth and logic to evaluate this debate; or second, if I am wrong, readers would still have no obligation to use truth and logic in their evaluation, because if, as Izbo claims, there is no such objective obligation, then readers wouldn't be required to listen to his poor arguments. If there is such objective obligation, then Izbo himself would be breaking it by arguing otherwise.>> "But, before the syllogism I need to demonstrate that what we have decided to label morals actual does go back to human well being. Lets take a look at moral "institutions" Judaism..."Con seems to be suggesting that people could only be convind of morality's practical application once there was a priestly caste or other religious framework in place. This notion is meritless on two accounts - first, religion is not the source of moraity, as Izbo himself admits (i.e. societal benefit). Second, morality has been around far longer than religion, and even the higher apes exhibit rudimentary understanding of morality.>> "Here are the syllogisms:"Finally, Con throws together a poor argument for objective morality. Bt, as I intimated before, his syllogism has a hidden premise - namely, that benefit to human well-being is morally good. I'm not contending that people would argue this point, but rather that it is inevaluable under a system of objective morality. Consider:1) benefit to human well being is good2) Therefore, benefit to human well being is benefit to human well being.Well duh. Once the criteria of "good" has been established, there is no way to evaluate the goodness of the criteria.Furthermore, Con's syllogism has a glaring flaw. I'll just move through it as he presents it:>> "P1:If something increases happiness and life span it is beneficial to human well being.">> "P2:Not murdering people increases human happiness and life span.Murdering those who would cause me harm before they can do so increases my happiness and life span. >> "C1 Not murdering people is beneficial to human well being."But, curiously, murdering those who would cause me harm was beneficial to my well being, and I am a human. >> "P3:Something is morally good if it benefits human well being.">>" c1=P3:not murdering people benefits human well being">>" C2:not murdering people is morally good."Therefore, my actions were morally good?? Obviously not. There must be something more to morality than Con's simple syllogism.>> "Neuroscience is now studying objective happiness..."But of course, the studies admit that subjective ideas of whether the actor is happy or not play a large role, because, as Kahneman puts it, the actor's beliefs about her happiness are themselves the cause of pain or pleasure. So it would be the case that subjective notions of happiness play a large role in this "objective" happiness standard.>> "another argument he may try to make would be well prove that life is something we should desire. "Con seems to think I would present a (poor) argument against existentil nihilism in his debate about objective morality. I'm not sure why... perhaps he is confsed between those two (unrelated) concepts.******************************************************************************Readers, Con has not responded to any of my initial objections except perhaps very, very, tangentially weakly to number 6 - the objection from unitentifiable principles.I suppose since he has chosen not to argue the other 9 points that he has conceded them, and thus, clearly lost this debate.All of my initial objections stand unaddressed. The resolution is clearly, AFFIRMED.