right and wrong are objective truths

As this is the final round I will generalize the previous rounds to make my closing arguments, with a short rebuttal to my opponents conclusion. Moral guidelines are created through the evolution of society and the result of learned behavior. ‘Learned' does not specifically mean ‘formal or informal education', but as a development process. Most morals are not therefore ‘learned' in any formal sense, but often absorbed through osmosis, as a child does through its parents. However, I digress, as my opponent's focal argument is the existence of ‘objective morality'. Definition: Objective [1] Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. "A square has four equal sides" - Is an objective statement. An objective moral statement does not exist. One cannot make a moral judgment without consulting their feelings. Therefore "objective morals" is an oxymoron. Since this has been definitively refuted, I would like to take it a step further and address the apparent religious contradiction. It seems arguments of "objective morality" tend to be drawn along lines of ‘Theist and Atheist'. While this perception is generally justified in many debates of this nature, it is not the intent of my argument. While my arguments refute my opponent's with mostly scientifically based disciplines, it is not intended to contradict any type of theistic view at all. In fact, I believe my position reinforces the theistic point of view, and vice versa. My opponent points to the Ten Commandment as an acceptable standard of basic morality. What greater example could there be to the lack of moral objectivity, but a divinely given set of morals, literally carved in stone? Even today, without actual stone tablets, they are metaphorically carved into the minds of much of world culture. Simply from an anthropological view, the passing down of these ‘basic concepts' (Code of Hammurabi, ten commandments etc) shows an exceptional value we (the human race) put on being able to pinpoint basic moral precepts. We have written them down, and passed them down to become entirely ingrained (taught, learned) within our cultures, at least, conceptually. In this sense, god is saying to learn these ‘objective concepts' because if you don't, you will be directionless and lost in the matrix, driven only by your feelings and subjective moral view… The very first commandment tells us that even the commandments are subjective. They are based on the view of a particular subject: (And interpreted subjectively with infinite commentary) Commandment 1: I am God As a starter for legitimizing a guideline to morality, (assuming it is of divine origin) it is difficult to beat this. More importantly though, it shows from a theistic point of view, that without God saying, don't kill, don't steal etc, we would be doing these things in even greater numbers, perhaps with no perception at all that it is ‘bad'. (As all religion comes with a requisite ‘moral guideline') So the question becomes, if these moral concepts are inherent and objective, why would God find it necessary to impart this wisdom upon us? Though I don't want to speak for god, my argument makes the case that the reason is specifically contrary to my opponent's point of view. While people may want to do ‘good' generally, without any perceived objective foundation, there is no evidence humanity has any idea what ‘good' is. This struggle between our natural human emotions and what we have chosen as our ‘personal moral guideline' is essential to what makes up the ‘human condition'. These struggles make up how we are perceived by society, and how we view ourselves. Finally, I would like to directly respond to my opponent final statements. "In sum, one cannot believe that Hitler, or Osama bin Laden, or anyone else for that matter, has done anything wrong unless one believes that morality is objective. " I find this statement to be ironic on a debate site. No one has done anything wrong until it has been proven using facts. Following this debate I would like my opponent to challenge me to "Hitler is bad" (he as pro) so I can reiterate this point. If one uses only ‘moral arguments' the debate wont even be close. (Anyone can feel free to challenge me to this if they would like, so I can make this point). Nonetheless, there is no ‘moral consensus' on the ‘badness' of Hitler, and/or especially with regards to Osama Bid Laden. "It is right to do good. It is wrong to do bad. Bad. Morals are objective or the previous two sentences have no meaning. " The previous two sentences, indeed, have no meaning. It is right to do good, and wrong to do bad, essentially have no meaning without a personal, subjective interpretation, and can therefore, NOT be objective. My opponent has thus negated his own resolution. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and anyone who spent their time reading it. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...