morality=survival+truth

Initially, all must comprehend the configuration of speeches in this debate which the negation will present in chronological order:Inauguration Asseveration/Acknowledgement Fundamental Effective Allocution Rejoinder Disquisition/Conspectus Panegyric/Conclusive Protestation Running-up would be a checklist of orders and modifications that are foretold to be comprehended in the carry-over of this debate: There shall be no spamming in argumentations or exemplification in this debate, also not accredited within the comments section. All debate argumentation will only take place within the rounds section and is not accredited in any other section. There shall be no trolling inside the argumentations or exemplifications in this debate, no offensive terms will be accredited anywhere within these rounds. All debate exemplifications must allude to the location of the gathering of averment, failure will ultimately result in plagiarism. In no event, shall any person other than the instigator vi_spex of this current debate, no individuals may use argumentation in this debate other than vi_spex. In no event, shall any person use this debate as a source of exemplification for any other debates, or any other use, without further notice. There shall be no use of personal or private information in this debate. All debate votings shall be true-to-heart and no vote bombing is allowed, all votes shall have an RFD. And so, the negation will begin this debate round with an opening statement which will then be followed by an acceptance of this debate. The negation clearly invalidates the resolution “[That] morality=[leads to] survival + [and] truth” (editing on the negations behalf to make the resolution easier to understand]. As Friedrich Nietzsche once stated, “Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose”. For this reason, morality is shown as an etiquette that is governing all humanity in a negative aspect. Morality exists in all humans, but there is no specific need in a huge influence that is presented upon humans for this natural trait. All humans are known for noticing the ultimate difference between right and wrong, but this specifically is not always present in the life of an individual. Additionally, by analyzing the resolution one may interfere and prove that survival and truth do not necessarily come from morality in this world. Some people are not moral and ethical at all in there life and are still able to survive and tell the truth. Just because one individual is not morally correct in society’s eyes does not mean at all that they may not live or tell the truth for their whole life, or not their life due to lack of survival. Due to this, the negation will provide 5 strong contentions to support this claim. Firstly, all must understand the negative aspects that morality provides on humanity. Secondly, all must understand that morality is present in all human beings and is not needed in large amounts of influence on society. Thirdly, all must understand that survival and truth are not traits that are provided from morality. Fourthly, all must understand how the lack of morality and ethical behavior in many individuals is still present and does not mean they have a lack of survival and truth. Therefore, the framework in this debate is whoever in this debate does a better job at providing an ultimate understanding of morality and shows how society has an impact on morality that is not necessarily true to the resolution, shall win this debate. The negation truly accepts this debate along with all arguments, exemplifications, contradictions, and it’s final outcome. The negation wishes the affirmation the dearest of luck and thanks for this great opportunity.