Objective Moral Values and Duties must be grounded in God

"Here I think it is important to point out that my opponent assumes that the "bedrock of all truths" is established." If my point is contested for being circular, the same could be said for your very objection to it. Your objection is based on logic, correct? If it is a valid point, it would defeat itself. Using logic to disprove logic would end in one asserting their will - and I could, in turn, assert existence existing as a fact. I could even go as far as to assert that objective morality can exist without God. The reason why I do not wish to do this is because, logically speaking, of course, it defeats the purpose of debate. The purpose of debating is to argue within a framework with already accepted rules, for these axioms allow argumentation to occur. After all, it's all for fun, isn't it? What's the fun in refusing to stress one's mind? Even if I'm wrong about what the conclusions you can draw from a basic axiom are, what doesn't change is that you can draw something from it, and that only one of two opposing statements can be correct at any given time. Both Locke and, say, Nietzsche*, cannot be right. One (or both, in fact), has to be wrong. If one has to be wrong, how can you say that they were logical? An idea surely cannot be both logical and illogical at the same time. I would, in fact, argue that the policies of Nazi Germany were made by lunatics. A distinction must be drawn between being logical and being structured. The Nazis were structured, but the structure they relied on was not logical. "I introduced this example solely as a way to illustrate the difference between a conditional and an unconditional ought." I was simply trying to understand where this distinction was. If it was dependent on a God, it would not be unconditional. If there really is no distinction between the two forms of "oughts", then my opponent's argument ("For a morality to be objective, it must regard unconditional oughtness) does not stand. "This definition of morality may be able to get you an "is," but it does not and cannot get you an unconditional "ought", or moral judgement." Would you not say that when one asks the question "what direction should I go if I wish to go to California?", and the person looks at a map and locates the location of both California and wherever they currently are, they can derive the answer to their question (an "ought") from reality (the "is")? If one is in, say, Alaska, and says "I should go east in order to get to California", they would obviously be wrong. "In a disagreement, two sides take opposing views on the truth-value of a proposition, but they have both reasoned their way to the conclusion." Do you believe that, in a scenario in which two people are in a room, and one "reasons" (using the term loosely) that A is A, and the other "reasons" that A is not A, both can be right? Unless you are claiming that reason itself is false, you have to assume that one of the two isn't reasoning in the proper way (whatever that may be (it's fairly irrelevant)). "Without some overarching power capable of judging and punishing immoral actions, people would simply act as their individual or societal moralities - which often disagree - dictate." I do not see how this is relevant. You have not yet explained how a large amount of people doing something immoral would destroy the fact that the action is immoral. Besides, would you not say that people could disobey God? After all, look at all the murderers in the world. x How are we going to go about the final round? Are we just doing conclusions? I would appreciate it if you laid out what I should do in your next round. Thanks.