Morality is subjective

As a brief road-map, I will be going first NEG, then AFF NEG- I will also be upholding the Value of Truth. I will conceded partially with my opponent wishes, and will also uphold the value of truth, and had planned to do in the first place. My opponent has already stated a bit on truth, and I will concede his logic; I will however also build and warrant this as a supreme value for the Neg stance. When dealing with such a resolution as this, we indeed must differentiate between objective, and subjective morality. and as is entailed with this resolution only one can be true. The debater whom proves that their standard of morality is true will win the Value portion of this debate Here is the point I divulge from my opponent's request, I instead offer a separate criterion. That of; Occom's Razor. Occom's dictates that when comparing two logical explanations, the one with the simplest explanation is the more reasonable example. For example, a tree disappears from the woods. One explanation suggests that it was destroyed by a meteor and that the meteor itself was flung back into space due to explosion of the gasoline buried beneath the tree the other explanation claim that it was cut down and used to build the log cabin 20 yards away. This is the greatest criteria in this round for multiple reasons; 1. Because it provides the greatest ground for both sides to access during the course of this debate 2. Because without being circular in nature to either out agreed value, or resolution; it provides the most direct link to the resolution for both sides. Obs1: When we look to such as resolution as this, one thing is brought to light as being substantially clear. True morality is not a subject that can be flippant in nature; but is directly polar in nature. Obs2: The resolution's intention is not for us to decide what is moral or immoral, but it is to show whether or not morality is subjective. C1: Subjective morality is unstable- If we accept that stealing is wrong, then this should be the standard; that stealing is wrong. we should not have to make this ideal of of whether or not stealing is wrong subjective because of a person's needs/ or wants. Say an able bodied man was slightly hungry, and stole food from an old woman on social security in order to satisfy hi hunger; this would be blatantly wrong, we would see this as a blatantly immoral action as they are depriving another human being of their food. Broadening the scope, if a starving pregnant mother stole food from an incredibly man, would it be an immoral action? Yes, absolutely; Despite the fact that we as a society would have more pity on the starving mother, it does not change the fact that she committed an immoral act, and thereby put an undeserved act on this rich man. She stole to satisfy the needs of herself and her child, but she stole nonetheless. Justifying it as moral because it is a necessity only serves to destroy true moral fiber, as one will then justify any action to their benefit as moral in order to justify the action to themselves. C2: Objective Morality is a truthful standard Again, if we accept the standard that stealing is wrong, we must continue to accept this standard through all scenarios; failing to do so rejects all of what morality is, all of what morality stands for. By keeping a strong, solid standard between the moral and the immoral; we do not allow human emotion to come into play, and thus limit what s true. Underview: Subjective morality is nothing but an excuse to maintain personal integrity; the cost is the forfeiting of truth of for nothing but vague ideals suited to the desires of the individual, not the truth of what is moral. The fact is that morality is not always a feel-good, right-for-me kind of thing; it the pivotal institute for the serving of justice. AFF- Value: My opponent holds the value of truth, however cross-referencing my own C1 with my opponent's value, we see this is one he cannot uphold; But even more so than that, my opponent never justifies why the value of truth upholds "Subjective Morality" he simply outlines what truth is. At this point, my opponent's value has no link to his case, you must default NEG. Criterion: First my opponent's criterion is circular to the resolution, his weighting mechanism for morality, is morality; or to say "understanding the nature of morality" However through this he neither achieves the AFF BOP, nor does he weight his own value. Second, my opponent's Criterion is not a weighting mechanism; is an activity. At the understanding of this, we see that his criterion is not criterion at all, but a value. Third, My opponent has no explanation to the functioning of his value, he explains what it is; but he never explains how he achieves it in this debate. You have no reason to look to the AFF criterion, you must default NEG C1: There is no master moral standard- First, My opponent never proves this claim, be it logically or empirically. Just because we justify an action, that does not make it moral; it simply means we've made ourselves feel better about it. Secondly, the argument hinges on accepting that Morality is Subjective prior to the round; however this is abuse, and blatantly outside the framers' intent. The purpose of this debate it to discuss whether or not Morality is Subjective; my opponent has not done this as of yet, thus he looses all connection and impact. C2: No standards can be justified- Link this first to my observation 2, we are are not her to debate the standard of what is moral and immoral. This is extra-topical, and thus irrelevant to the resolution. Link this secondly to my under-view, if we even accept that morality exists; then there must be some kind of standard of morality. This is basic fare in morality, in fact by claiming that no standard can be justified, my opponent forfeits this debate, as he cannot justify something that is not an absolute. Finally, because justice exists; standards can be justified. This is the entire basis of the American legal system, a problem is raised, decided on democratically, and justified as a moral or immoral standard In conclusion, you have no reason to vote for the AFF side, whereas you have every reason to vote for the NEG I now hand the debate back over to my very capable opponent.