"Most people should believe in existence of objective morality"
Pro takes position that most people should believe in existence of objective morality.
Con takes position that most people should "not believe in existence of objective morality".
Objective morality is defined as "things person objectively should/shouldn't do or objectively should/shouldn't believe in".
Burden of proof is shared.
Rules in description are agreed upon when accepting debate, and cannot be challenged. Same for definitions.
believe:
to think that something is true, correct, or real:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/believe
If my opponent says that people should believe in his position, while claiming no objective "should believe in" exists, he commits a self-defeat where he at same time wants to claim his position is what people should objectively believe in, while claiming people shouldnt objectively believe in anything.
II. Unwinnable situation for killer
If we were to meet a killer, he would be faced with only 3 logical options presented by us:
Should killer claim 1, he admits killing is wrong.
Should killer claim 2, we can claim "then we can kill the killer".
Should killer claim 3, and assume special pleading is okay, we can likewise do special pleading and say that killing him is okay because we do it.
With only 3 logical options available, none benefit the killer. And these 3 logical options remain true as objective morality, because 4th option doesnt exist. If my opponent comes up with "objectively true 4th option", he would be admitting objective morality instead of denying it.
This logical trap doesn't work. The negation of "most people should believe in the existence of objective morality" is not "most people should NOT believe in the existence of objective morality"; it's "it is not true that most people should believe in the existence of objective morality". These are not the same thing. A moral nihilist does not believe the statement "one ought not murder" is untrue because they believe that one ought to murder; they believe it is untrue because morality is (in their view) incoherent. In other words, there is no way it could be true OR false. Those are the three possibilities regarding the resolution:
If (3) is true, then the resolution is not true, but neither is the counter-resolution that "most people should not believe in the existence of objective morality".
Putting all that aside, your definition of moral realism is terrible and recursive, the realist position is unsubstantiated, and the idea of belief or disbelief being a moral issue is highly dubious anyway. You also seem to conflate "one ought to believe A" with "A naturally follows from B". The two are by no means the same; this is just the fallacy of the four terms regarding what one "should believe in".
No counter-arguments have been posted yet.
