Without God, there is no base for morality to stand upon

"I agree with you that nobody can ever have the same morality. There can never be universal morals that everyone follows..."With this statement my opponent has basically conceded the debate. If we look back at the resolution we see that we are trying to argue that without god there is no BASE for morality to stand on. Not bases, not some kind of foundation that is subjective but a singular base. By agreeing that nobody can ever have the same morality and that there can never be universal morals that everyone follows my opponent concedes that there is no singular base for morality to stand upon. There may be multiple bases, or factions of morality but there is no true base. In this he has conceded the debate to me.However, I will continue and dismantle his arguments further.First, on his point about neanderthals, they are not human. One of the key points in discussing morality and ethics is establishing who is a moral agent and what constitutes a person. I think it is a fallacy to try and debate the existence of morals and moral bases using an extinct species that was not even human. Secondly, he claims that these types of actions, which he admits himself are just natural instinct, would fall in line with our sense of morality. There is a difference between morality and instinct. In fact, they probably cared for their wounded and lived in families because it was the best thing to do for their survival. Morality completely aside. Anyways, the whole example is on a whole, a terrible one that cannot really be considered. My opponent then tries to counter my example about gang members by saying: "They don't know what is morally wrong because they were never told, or they were raised wrong and they became rebellious to authority figures." This further highlights my point that there is no moral base here. First, how can they or their parents or you or anyone know what is "morally wrong" without a true base? You can argue this way and that about what you FEEL is right but with no base to stand upon it will be subject to personal feelings and opinions which is no base at all. What if they weren't "raised wrong"? What if their parents brought them up to be like this on purpose because they felt it was morally right? In the situation we are discussing this is a very real possibility. Next, I will address my opponent's points about god. He says:"It seems to me that most religious teachings are hostile and controlling. With every religion there are extremists, and they follow the same god as everyone else in the religion, following the same scripture, same moral teachings."However, with a god there is that moral base to judge their actions against. Having a moral base does not mean everyone will interpret it the same or follow it but it is there. The extremists are called so because the bulk of their respective religions judges them against the moral base and casts them out. And your opinions on the rightness of religious teachings is irrelevant if there is that moral base in existence. Lastly, I agree that people can have the exact same morals as a religious person without god. The difference is while they may have the exact same morals, there are an indefinite set of other morals that people can also come to. In the scenario with god, there is only one. My opponent concedes the debate when he says morality without god can become fractured. A moral base would imply a universalist moral principle that everyone strives to follow. My opponent admits without god this is not possible and therefore admits without god there is no base for morality to stand upon. Thank you.