right and wrong are objective truths

First allow me to apologize to my opponent and any readers of this debate for not getting to my argument in time and therefore forfeiting the last round.My opponent asserts that morals are subjective because they are based on social evolution, they fluctuate over time and they are learned.I will address these assertions one at a time. The first assertion I will address is the assertion that morals are learned. Although I do not agree that morals MUST be taught I do believe my opponent is correct in stating that morals are often learned. However, it does not follow from the fact that something is learned to the conclusion that the thing is not objective. Example: Math is taught and learned however mathematical truths are objective and universal. It is also possible to arrive at a knowledge of mathematical truths through the use of a person's reason without being taught. E.g. I can see that each time I add one more apple to my grocery cart the total number of apples in my cart increases. Although for most people (at least in places where education is widely available) addition is taught and learned in school. It is not difficult to see that the concept could be discovered by most people without being taught.Clearly the fact that something is learned does not mean the thing learned is not objective.The next two assertions I will address together.My opponent states that moral standards are based on "social evolution" and that they fluctuate.It appears that these two assertions say in essence the same thing since "evolution" and "fluctuation" both refer to change. Therefore I will take the assertions as one point, that is to say, "Moral standards change as society evolves."Assuming, for the sake of argument, that what people profess to hold as their moral standards do change as societies evolve, it is clear that this would not have any bearing on whether there were Truly objective moral standards. There are people who believe the earth is flat and people who believe that aliens regularly visit the earth. There are even people who conform their actions to these beliefs. Of course whether the earth is flat and whether we do have alien visitors is not dependent on whether people believe those facts or act in accordance with them. Objective beliefs do NOT require belief in order to be true. They are True in fact and not subject to the beliefs of any person.Having said this it is clear that my opponents argument is, at least in some sense, an answer or rebuttal of my arguments. Therefore I will take them as such so long as it is clear that, taken by themselves, as assertions rather than rebuttals, they bring us no further in our search for Truth on the ultimate question of this debate.As far as the usefulness of my opponents statements for the purpose of rebuttal the first question is are the assertions true? The second question is do they rebutt an assertion I made in my argument?As far as the latter question is concerned it is important to note that I limited my assertions concerning agreement on moral standards to "major moral standards" lets say things like the 10 commandments in general. No murder, No rape, No lying, cheating, stealing, backstabbing, gossiping, harming people without cause, etc..My opponent brings up specific cultural examples of moral or legal standards and states that they prove there is no consensus about morals. Of course, I would have to be completely ignorant to have been suggesting that the legal standards for all people in the world were the same. I am aware that a person can rarely travel 50 miles in the United States of America (at least in well populated areas) and not go through several towns, cities or municipalities, let alone states, each of which have a laundry list of laws that differ from the town, city etc. next door.My contention is that we agree about the basics. Not that we all have deduced to the particulars in the same way. "Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked."C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity http://www.lib.ru...I do not say that women in Saudi Arabia are not treated differently than women in Europe or America. What I do say is that there is an objective standard for how women and men should be treated. My assertion is, that in all times and places, with few exceptions, people have agreed about the basics of what was right and wrong. It has been in the deduction process from those basic agreed upon Truths to the particular behaviors required by morality where differences have shown themselves. "Social evolution" is nothing more than using the evidence we have gained from history to attempt to more closely conform our actions to those basic standards than we have in the past.If all of us believe we should not harm other humans without a just cause. We must further take that standard and apply it to a decision in real life such as whether to go to war with our neighbor because he has something we would like to have. We can look at the evidence from history and see that when we go to war for that reason we end up doing harm to others without a just cause."But wait," one may say, "there are those who still will go to war for those very same reasons!" One may be right that nations do continue behaving this way. In fact my opponent makes the following similar argument:"My opponent uses basic morality to illustrate an agreement in the world. While he is correct that we have agreement on basic moral issues in conceptual form, what is said is not what has been done, and therefore does not reflect human nature."As one can see my opponent admits the basis of my argument to be true (that we have agreement on basic moral issues) but he seems to state that because we do not behave in accordance with our professed agreed upon standards those standards do not reflect human nature.My argument has never been that behaving morally is part of human nature. In fact, my statement at the beginning of this debate is that morals are objective, i.e. they are True OUTSIDE of human nature or any other nature or belief. The fact is that moral standards often call us to do something other than what our "nature" would desire. I may want to be kind to others and treat them like myself but more likely I desire to have all others treat me well and I would like to treat them however I feel like treating them at any particular time.One quick note on my opponent's use of law as an argument against objective morality.My opponent is correct that law is often created to try to promote moral behavior and punish immoral behavior. However, it is rare that law attempts to mold behavior to the highest standards of morality. It is more common that law operates to keep people from falling below the lowest standard. We may punish a murderer. We do not punish one who does not volunteer enough of his time to help the poor. Also law is created by men and women who are fallible and have the same difficulty we all have in deducing particular rules from basic known moral standards. Law is also sometimes created by those who are immoral and used as a tool to further immoral ends. Law is not equivalent to moral standards.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. It is right to do good. It is wrong to do bad. Bad. Morals are objective or the previous two sentences have no meaning.