The categorizations of "Good" and "bad" are illusions and nothing more. (and so is morality)

Harlan, I would like to start by saying that I am not attacking you personally, I have not said that YOU were an idiot, or YOU are ridiculous. I am however, attacking the notions that you have set forth, and you should expect tour views to come under scrutiny. I did question your motive though, I will admit. I continue to question this. As you know, an important part of any debate is the consistency of the individual on the given topic. There can be no double standards or flip flopping. This is why Mitt Romney is under scrutiny for his views on abortion. In a previous debate, you stated some things that were contradictory to what you have said here. You were debating against torture, and stated thus: "Torture is inhumane and horrific"..."torture can not be justified, period."..."my argument can be summed up easily: torture is bad because it hurts a lot"...at one point you even state: "That was my technical argument, now i will give you my MORAL one...part of the reason we have human rights is to protect those who have done 'bad'". For viewers to read the full debate, it is here: http://www.debate.org... I am not sure if this is a change in position since the time you said these things, or a double standard where there is no right and wrong or morality unless it is convenient to defend your view. I certainly think it calls into question your credibility on this topic. You may try to now come back and "spin" those words to mean something other than what they say, but the true context is right there in the above link. I now close my argument by addressing two more flaws of logic in your arguments. First, below you stated that your views were "true". You then tried to stand by your view that there is no right or wrong, but there is a truth, (and therefore fallacy) meaning a view can be wrong if it is false, or right if it is true. This is again very simple logic that must be intentionally overlooked for one not to see it. Lets not forget that your arguments have been so abstract as to call everything into question, any reality at all whatsoever, you see then the problem with your saying "my views are TRUE"? This brings me to my final statement. You stated: "It is possible that I am not having this debate...could be a dream...I could be hallucinating...it could be the year 2450 and I am actually a frenchman of the age of 46 who has had his memory wiped and am now in a virtual reality thing, our whole worlds are just signals received by the brain" You then say "Actually it is very logical" I should be able to close with that, again, pinning the word "logical" to a statement doesn't automatically make it logical. You are not a frenchman in 2045, you are Harlan and it is 2007, to think otherwise is grossly illogical. I am not saying you think this, I know you probably don't, but the fact that you believe it is logical to accept that as a possibility shows an enormous flaw in your logic here. This is not a personal attack, it is scrutiny of arguments that are illogical. There is truth and there is fallacy. There is right and there is wrong. There is opposition in all things. And we as human beings do have a purpose, we have free will, and are driven to do what we do. We have children for a reason, we feel love for a reason. There is evil in this world. What happened on 9/11 was purely evil and immoral, THAT is a fact. THAT is logic.