Morality is not objective nor decided by any god but rather a freedom of people

Hello. Thanks for debating this fascinating and important topic. No debate format was given, so I will simply state my own case for now and save rebuttals for the next round. I will first take some time to summarize my understanding of my opponent"s position. I invite them to correct me if I misinterpret anything. It seems the claim here is that morality is not objective, but rather something people get to choose for themselves as long as they respect others" right to do the same. Morality is not some intrinsic, factual truth but rather something that evolved with our brains to help us survive, and remains with us today due to natural selection. This is my understanding of Pro"s claims. I am assuming, of course, that Pro is not arguing that people choose good from bad in a completely literal sense, because that is obviously true and non-debatable. Clearly people make judgments on right and wrong all the time. I believe Pro is getting at the deeper issue of whether there is an independent (objective) metric that can ultimately declare each person"s moral choices as correct or incorrect. Pro mentions God, but I am going to avoid any religious arguments. This is a debate about morality, and so I will stick to that topic. I will quickly define objective and subjective morality as follows: Objective " certain standards of human behavior (morals) are by nature good/bad regardless of people"s opinions. Subjective " Standards of human behavior are a function of individual opinion. A behavior is "good"only when a person decides it is "good." Please let me know if you disagree with these definitions. Now, on to my arguments. Claiming that morality is subjective is a logically nonsensical. This is because saying "Morality is not objective" is an objective claim that appeals to an intrinsic nature of morality. In other words, arguing that morality is subjective suggests that people with differing opinions are incorrect, which suggests that morality does have an intrinsic nature that exists independently of people"s opinions. So, philosophically, even having this debate suggests that morality must have some kind of true essence that we can argue over because someone"s opinion is wrong and someone"s opinion is right. If morality was truly subjective, this would not be possible. Second, an observation of universal human behavior suggests that morality is most likely objective. This is sometimes mistaken as an appeal to popularity, but it is not. Rather, it is a natural conclusion drawn from careful observation, similar to the scientific method. Every human society operates based on the existence of objective right and wrong. The alternative to this, and the physical manifestation of true moral subjectivity (where everyone accepts everyone else"s opinion of human behavior), is anarchy. Anarchy does periodically occur, but it is always short lived and followed by some kind of law or order. True moral subjective systems simply do not exist. Thus, we observe that standards of human behavior seem to exist in an objective state. Finally, embracing true moral subjectivity demands outcomes that are not realistic. In a subjectively moral system, every person"s opinion about right and wrong must be equally acceptable. The rapist, the murderer, and the child molester must all be respected and accepted for their individual interpretations of good and bad just as much as the doctor and philanthropist. We do not observe this state in any human society. Furthermore, common sense suggests advocating such a state does not reflect an acceptable reality. This concludes my initial arguments. I look forward to the next round.