Existence of objective morality

The first thing that I will respond to in my opponent's post is his misapplication of the law of non-contradiction. He claims that, with the subject of stealing as an example, subjectivity does not allow two diametrically opposed concept of the rightness or wrongness an action to be correct at the same time. This part I agree with and will not dispute. It is in accordance with the law of non-contradiction. It is what my opponent says next that made me re-read it twice to make sure I read right. He claims that out of two opinions on stealing, "They can't be both wrong for the same sort of reason. One is right, one is wrong. Which means that there is an objective moral fact. " I will show that this is not a logically valid conclusion. Just because one can make two different judgements on something in no way means one of them must be correct. It is a false dichotomy. My opponent wants us to believe that the only two options for a given value jusgement is whether it is right or wrong. But there is a third option. It could not be right or wrong. My opponent does not rule this out as a possibility. Just as you can do with any question, let's take for example math, I can impose a false dichotomy to make it seem as though there are only two possible answers. If I show you a red sweater and ask you whether it is green or blue I have given you two wrong answers but disguised them as the only answers. Both answers are wrong. Moral error theory argues that moral propositions are not wrong or right in that they fallaciously presuppose moral facts. Now on to my opponent's contention with my definition of existence. I do not believe that any sort of body is required for something to exist. For example, a 45 degree angle can exist even though it has no body. It is simply the relation between two lines. So I am not going to argue that relations do not exist or that a body is necessary for existence. Next my opponent tries to redefine morality as to fit his argument. The meaning of morality that we will be debating is how I defined it in the first round. In fact, I actually addressed the possibility of my opponent trying to redefine terms in my rule 3: "Acceptance of this challange implies acceptance of all definitions, rules and other clarifications. " Morality will not be argued as a general evaluative property as my opponent has tried to argue. It will be argued as objectively prescriptive fact. My opponent tries to argue that an example of a moral fact would be "if desires need not be checked but provide appropriate and rational reasons for acting (I don't mean merely that they make one want to act, which is a purely descriptive fact and not an evaluation, but that acting in accord with them is a good thing)". My opponent makes the mistake of equating rationally with gooness. He provides no warrant for us to believe this other than his attempt at redefining morality which was prohibited when my opponent accepted this challenge. My opponent then tries to use an example with the color red as a means to establish moral objectivity. He writes: "to say that morality is objective is to say that whether an action is right depends on the nature of that action". I am not debating on the correct means to evaluate moral propositions. This debate is on whether those evaluations are objective. To take another example using the color red, if I claim that red is a color and you respond that barns are red; you have not disputed my argument. You have merely made a statement related to the subject at hand. This debate is not about normative ethics and how best to evaluate moral propositions takeing moral realism as a given. This debate is on whether or not moral propositions are in fact objective or not. My opponent lastly claims that I set up a straw man of what a hypothetical imperative would be but does not show why it was a straw man or offered a better definition. I claimed that a hypothetical imperative would be: If A than B. More specifically, if one wants to do X, one must do Y. I argued that the nature of a hypothetical imperative is conditional to thought and so it could not be counted as anything objective in the sense that objective has been defined. I await my opponent's response.