Resolve: Arguments involving morals standards are weak and/or useless - take 2

I'll start by countering my opponent's attack of wikipedia. Wikipedia is CITED, SOURCED, and under constant SCRUTINY. Your opinion that wikipedia isn't reliable is lacking ; the fact of the matter is, it's easier to link wikipedia, than several sources which were combined to come with what the page offers. I'll concede this fact of Lincoln, simply because I was undereducated on the issue. However, morals DID become a part, as YOU stated, during and after the civil war. If the purpose of morals is irrelevant to the debate, then what is, pray tell? You've basically said, "Morals are weak arguments, and any argument in favor of morals is irrelevant." This is ABUSIVE, and should be ignored. I'm not saying that every human being is a moral creature, or that they even have refined morals. That's why moral debate is SO IMPORTANT. With the use of morals, and the debating of morals, the stronger morals can exist. The problem was, Hitler gained power quickly, and as he implemented his policy, the punishment for speaking against him became death.[1] Again, my opponent repeatedly ignores all my of arguments, instead switching to a tactic of, "No, you're wrong, I'm not listening." If you refer to your flows, you'll see that I answered all of his arguments. He claimed morals are weak arguments, because they are not set in stone > Strong morals rise to the top, and become near impossible to refute. Morals are opinions > Scrutiny forces refined opinions made by experts > Not only experts can have opinions > Thought of the subject matter can consider someone an expert. At this point, my opponent agrees, surrendering his own argument, whilst conceding to mine. Standards vary > Standards raise with time and refinement of ideas. My opponent's claim that I dropped his arguments, as I've shown, is incredibly flawed and a flat out lie. To the subject at hand, morals are subjective, yes. However, through scrutiny, refinement, moral philosophy, etc. They become stronger and stronger, eventually creating standards of which to judge actions on. Again, morals dictate our motives, and to say this is a weak argument is to say anything we do is baseless and irrelevant. My opponent failed again to refute my case, though I showed him clearly what arguments he dropped. Dropped arguments _________________ Impact of Life > Dropped entirely. Refinement of Morals > Dropped entirely Moral Incentives > I don't care that morals are required for motive, it is irrelevant in this debate. His responses are listed above, if one was offered. The important thing to remember in this debate is such ; Morals dictate how we live, act, and indeed, the motives behind our deeds. The refinement of morals is required in order to create standards, which we use in debate as moral arguments. These moral initiatives provide solid reasoning and rhetoric as to their basis, and why they are important. Vote Breakdown ______________ Conduct : Tied, both debaters had their moments of distasteful statements S&G : Tied, both debaters had good sentence structure. Arguments : CON, Pro failed to refute any of Con's arguments, Con refuted all of Pros. Sources : CON, Pro provided 3 sources ; Con provided 9. I thank my opponent for this debate, and I must encourage a vote for CON. Sources [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com...