Morality is objective

My opponent starts by restating two definitions, which I both agree with, and then says: 'if I can demonstrate the existence of any categorizations of good and bad that hold true in spite of popular agreement, then I will have proved my position. ', which I would also tend to agree with, so let's see if he has done so. Law and morality:Again, my opponent points to the legal system, so I will (once again) try to show my opponent why LAW and MORALITY are not the same thing: Morality is the categorization of an action under the characteristics 'good' or 'bad (or evil)'. Law, on the other hand, is the characterization of an action under the characteristics 'legal' or 'illegal'. My opponent is trying to argue that since the law is a form of objective characterization, then morality must be objective too, but he misses the distinction; laws do not separate actions between 'good' and 'bad'. While morality is characterized on an individual basis, laws are characterized on a popular basis which is based on each individual's assessment of the morality of a specific action. In other words, laws are our way to cope with the problem that morality SEEMS (not to be confused with 'IS DEFINITELY') subjective. My so-called non-sequitur was actually just a conjecture, which is why I said 'probably' (although I do admit that I can not establish the probability of that statement being true). The website I gave was not an appeal to authority, it was more like an 'appeal to the fact that I don't have unlimited characters to write my argument', so I chose to present the website in order to illustrate that laws are INDEED voted upon, which makes their acceptance (or refusal) almost entirely a matter of popularity. Now, unless my opponent disagrees with the information in the website, I don't really see why this is an issue. The burden of proof:I only mentioned the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof when there was no evidence provided by my opponent, for example:'This argument challenges my opponent to demonstrate that all people do not have some right to life, health, happiness, etc…' This is NOT supported by evidence. If my opponent is referring to his many appeals to popularity, then I would like to remind that popular agreement is in NO WAY the arbiter of truth, and therefore can not be considered evidence. Appeal to popularity:'I am appealing to a commonly observed reality that all societies operate under, using their nature and behavior as evidence. ' I have already pointed out some societies that do not 'operate' the same way we do. Plus, even if all societies agreed on EVERYTHING (which they don't), pointing to that fact to justify the view that morality is objective would still be an appeal to popularity. The analogy with the metric system is interesting, but fails for the following reason: This debate is about the OBJECTIVITY of something (morality), whereas the analogous debate is about whether or not something is being used. For the analogy to work, the title of the debate would need to be 'The metric system is objectively true', which doesn't really make sense. Opinion:First of all, putting an ad hominem between parenthesis in order to 'avoid' actually making it is quite childish. Plus, I believe that my opponent agrees with my position on the issues he raised so I wonder why he would call my opinions 'horrifying'. Second, I agree that my answers are not arguments, but that is because they were not meant to be; my opponent asked me some questions and I simply answered them. I was not trying to make any sort of point, nor was I trying to rebut any of his arguments since these questions were NOT arguments (although I suspect that he was expecting me to say that these things are absolutely wrong, so that he could point out that I have no basis to say that since I don't believe that morality is objective). Objective standard:My opponent makes a completely baseless assumption regarding the way societies would behave in a world where morality is objective and in a world where morality is subjective. I can play this game too:Objective: A world where morality is objective would be a world where there is no disagreement on anything, where laws are unnecessary and where countries do not exist; we would all live in the same global society. Subjective: In a world where morality is subjective, there is disagreement on many issues, laws are decided by popular vote, there are many countries and they often wage war against one another. My opponent then goes on to assess the world in order to demonstrate that it concords with his idea of a world in which there is objective morality. But, since his idea of such a world is completely baseless (and, as far as I know, could have been constructed to correspond with reality), I will not try to demonstrate why it doesn't concord with reality, although I will analyze the paragraph:'We do not let other people live according to whatever standards they choose' I agree, because that would lead to chaos. 'the underlying objective principle is that people should not expose themselves indecently to others' Yes, but my opponent is playing on words; 'indecent' is unlikeable by definition, so obviously no one likes anything that is 'indecent'. The subjectivity lies in what we consider to be indecent (and to clarify, being nude on a nude beach is not considered indecent). 'The Americans did not tell the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, "hey, we really didn't like that but if you think it's ok then go ahead and do whatever you think is right. "' That is correct. Here, my opponent is trying to argue that if morality was subjective, then we would never complain about the actions of other societies. But is that really the case? How can my opponent possibly know whether or not this is the case? I would instead argue that the United States reacted to Pearl Harbor in a way that they personally (as a country) saw fit. The fact that something is 'just your opinion' does not make it irrelevant or meaningless. I disagree with the assertion that we have intrinsic rights, or that intrinsic rights even exist. Rights are things that we grant ourselves in order to have a guideline on which to base our laws. I do agree that people fight for their rights, but I reject that it is because they sense that these rights are intrinsic. I believe they fight for these rights because they enjoy living under their protection (or 'would like' to live under their protection, in certain circumstances). But even if I granted that everyone sensed that we possess intrinsic rights, would it necessarily follow that these rights are intrinsic? Or would that be yet another appeal to popularity? 'The second we evaluate someone else's actions by our own personal moral beliefs, we have appealed to morality's objective existence. ' This is completely contradictory; how are 'own personal moral beliefs' even remotely related to objectivity? The logical impossibility:'Given the question - "what is the nature of morality? " my answer is objective, and my opponent claims that answer is wrong. ' No, I am simply unconvinced of the truth of my opponent's assertion, which is why he has the BoP. I have already said that this was an unfalsifiable hypothesis, so I would never claim that morality is actually subjective. To the question 'what is the nature of morality? ', I do believe that there is an answer, but I do not know what that answer is and I do not believe that we will ever know. To win this debate, my opponent has to demonstrate that his answer is correct. Whether or not the nature of morality can change has nothing to do with what it actually is. 'Something cannot be objectively subjective. ' Wrong, every characteristic has the potential of being 'objective', including subjectivity. I agree that we are all entitled to our own opinions.