Morality is an evolved social construct

Ladies and gentlemen, this debate has come down to two questions: 1) Does morality exist? 2) If question 1 is true, is morality evolved? My opponent gave you what I thought was good analysis in the last round, about why people have morality. He said it happens "through . .. reasoning. " As such, he practically concedes my argument 2.2, where I showed that much of what my opponent labels morality is in fact reasoning. I provided good analysis in round one that they are distinct, and my opponent never responded to that throughout this entire debate. Starting from a skeptical perspective, my opponent would need to prove the claim that morality exists, because he is the one bringing the claim - the burden of proof is on him. His only analysis to "prove" morality was to attempt to rebut one of my claims about it. This is not sufficient as a proof, and therefore, my opponent cannot possibly win this argument. However, just because my opponent said that both sides have a burden to carry, I proved in two ways that there are no universal principles to base subjective morality on. You can review these by scrolling back up to round one. Argument 1.2 my opponent never responded to, despite my frequent pleas. The only conclusion I can reasonably draw from this is that my opponent concedes this point. On the very first argument I made, my opponent has searched in vain for a universal principle to disprove my theory. All he has come up with is "don't kill. " By the last round, however, my opponent has made so many concessions that he had to agree that even the mentally fit will disagree on when killing is alright and when it is not. Oh dear. The long and short of it is that this is far from a universal principle - therefore, this counter-argument will not stand. My opponent provided no analysis other than this on that point, so argument 1.1 holds as well. Therefore, having proved in two ways objective morality does not exist, I have also shown that subjective morality cannot exist, meaning argument 2.1 holds as well. All the pieces of the puzzle having come together, it seems there is only one conclusion that can be drawn - morality does not exist. Having already lost on question one, my opponent cannot win the debate on question two. However, he did make a simplistic case for why morality is evolved - some higher order animals apparently showing sympathy or patience. Great. This is what is known as observational evidence. You cannot prove a hypothesis based on observation. To prove a hypothesis, you need an experiment, for instance, finding a gene that controls morality. My opponent has entirely failed to provide any proof whatsoever. He cannot disprove any other theory - that the animals behave randomly, that God sent morality, or any other competing theory is still just as likely as his. He also was using his subjective view of morality to justify some animals being objectively more moral than others - as I pointed out in round two, this is a fallacy. This, and a few other counter-arguments I made against this point, have all been entirely ignored by my opponent. Therefore my opponent has failed to show that morality is an evolved construct.