Humans can have morality without God.

'No limitations on what to write in any round' means you have no restraints on whether to rebut or make a new point. Not that it matters much to the debate, though. 'Con will argue that God or a holy book teaches morality' Good observation! I value a worthy opponent. Your arguments are valid. I'll shoot them down the good old way. 'you don't seem to take into consideration that any holy texts are Gods teachings and often interpreted as the words of God.' Traitor! I'm already swinging my lightning bat round and round just like that Stormtrooper. You are not an atheist at all! Holy texts are God's teachings? What, He flew down to Earth and opened a school? How else would you know it was taught by God? Some angel wrote the Bible and contacted a publisher? Oh, Jesus was your messenger. Before he was born there were no moralities and He was the first non-psychopath then? Again, holy texts were wrote at most by a few kind people, and then incorporated into religion. But before that, there was still morality, proving human conscience was what wrote religious teachings, not God. 'Your argument appears heavily based around asking rhetorical questions about religion and generalised statements about parents teaching their children about morality.' And yet, they are solid, logical points that you are unable to rebut. 'Religion has always influenced what we teach our children about what is right and wrong. The teachings that have been embedded into our society over countless generations to suggest that learning morality "has nothing to do with religion" is ignoring that many of the lessons that parents will convey to their children may have some connection to a religious teaching, no matter how vague.', 'Religion still has a very strong influence over modern society, there teachings are generally well known to the majority of the population and it is impossible to argue that religious texts do not preach morality and encourage humanity to be charitable and kind. Taking this into consideration even if you do not practice a religion you presumably are aware of many religious teachings and even agree with some. Therefore, holy texts and religious teachings do play a very predominant role in conveying morality because they are so accessible and influential. Furthermore, even the very basics of religious teachings can be accepted by atheists as similar to their own believes.' Ah, I see your point. A weak one. Let's say religion never existed at all, no Bible, no ISIS. People would undoubtedly still be living their lives with morality. Why? Because there was morality before religion, there always has been. Does the law have anything to do with religion? No. The laws were written by people, judging with their own conscience what was right and wrong. Conscience is the writer, religion is nothing more than a publisher who barges in and says, 'everything in the book is relevant to me! Remember, it was me who made these values, therefore you all should give full credit to me!' 'I see no reason why you cannot make a connection between someone's moral compass and their beliefs especially since the majority of what people do is motivated by what they believe to be the right thing to do.' That, my friend, is called conscience, something all humans are well equipped with, and has nothing to do with religion. Basically sums up my main point. Oh, and by the way, I'm still waiting for a point which can't be easily gunned down. To end my turn, I'm here to say religion is just for spiritual support, nothing more. Don't use any holy book as your science textbook, nor does religion deserve any credit in the human morality. In this case, it is just something trying to gain attention for what human conscience has done for us. I cringe to even think that the only thing that prevents us humans from being a civilized species is some book with the words of an invisible imaginary dude floating in the sky.