Debate: Is there a such thing as "objective morality"?
Side: Yes

This is my point exactly. When you fail to put together a sound argument, on the grounds that I won't understand anyway, you fail to display what the IQ suggests. This failure is not reversed by your IQ, rather your honesty of your declared IQ is in question.I said that I attempt to put an argument together in a way all can understand. I am infamously known as being esoteric when I debate at other schools. And as a result, people take more time evaluating my responses while trying to construct their own. I also had this problem with my teachers when I was to write a simple essay . They had to scrutinize my papers more than others. From their inadvertent responses I could tell it was annoying. My philosophy professor could understand my situation and gave me a few pointers on writing and debating. The reason I avoid writing on this website like I would normally do is to not confuse anyone to the point that can cause a response that resulted from confusion. I also exemplify most of my points so I can get it across even easier. I will exemplify my meaning of writing simply vs. my version. This analogous to speech is to not be taken literal.My version of saying 1+1=2 in comparison to writing would be; in order to find the numeric term "two" within the circumambiency of the first three numeric terms to include zero, one(personified) would need to enumerate constituents of the first two numeric terms, abstract the first, replicate a summation of the following, upon summation one (personified) would come to a revelation of the numeric term two! Now imagine that complexity in an already complex argument. And my exemplification was simple because I said 1+1, I could have used a complex algebraic exemplification and it would be even more confusing. My point is I oversimplify to make debating fun and easy. I have learned to do so when I travel to debate at various schools. Now sure, I can be esoteric while I debate at competitions but what fun is that if they are struggling to understand over complex logic that they, more than likely, just started learning? My goal is not to shut people up by revealing inferiority (sometimes I do when there is a smartass calls for it.) You, just like most, do not understand my intentions so you profile me as being someone trying to express prestige. When all I am doing is being informative.As for the Ivy league courses. The post I have seen do not confirm this. These people, for the most part, seem educated, but not at Ivy League level. Maybe one or two, but not most.As for your last remark. There you go again with an exacerbating exaggeration. I said before, not everyone can comprehend the complexities with certain statements. Even if you or a few other can, it does not mean everyone can. And I assumed this website was public for all to see so if a respond then my response is going to be literarily eligible for anyone to read, not just the "literary logical elites".Also you keep referring to my arguments as being "poor". I'd say that's a bit disdainful and I would disagree. I feel as though my arguments gets my point across, consists of facts, and concludes with an understanding of the purpose. I have several messages of confirmation of me being well argued. You habitually argue erroneously based off of what you think. You have disagreed with several facts based off of these thoughts. At least I have admitted that I might not have an immediate response if I have not done the research.