Morality is objective

I will present final rebuttalsBad vs Illegal: Con makes a semantics rebuttal by saying laws categorize actions as legal or illegal, not good or bad. I technically agree seeing that they are different words. Con is forced to use words like "legal" and "illegal" because using good/bad/right/wrong would be a checkmate on their position. For this rebuttal to work, Con must show that they are not just different but have different meanings. The words "good" and "bad" are extremely broad adjectives that could include "right" and "wrong." I turn to Multiple Modus Ponens, which says: if A then B. If B then C. A, therefore C. Step 1: If something is illegal, then it is wrong. Step 2: If something is wrong, then it is bad. Step 3: Therefore, if something is illegal, then it is bad. I do not think it's unreasonable to equate "wrong" with "bad" or "right" with "good." In fact, according to Thesaurus.com, the synonym for "wrong" is "bad" and its antonyms are "good" and "moral." Con even wrote in Round 3 they "fully grant" that laws "categorize what is right and what is wrong." Therefore, I propose it's fairly acceptable to say that what is legal is also considered good, and vice versa, so Con's rebuttal falls short.To press this point further, Con admitted in Round 4 that laws categorize actions as legal or illegal in order to prevent anarchy. This implies that anarchy is bad or undesirable. So, one could say that laws prohibit "bad" actions that destabilize society. This means laws do categorize bad actions that lead to bad results. Con tries again to say that laws are simply functions of popular opinion. That is not entirely true and his website proves that in its second sentence. Yes, laws are voted upon, but they must then be measured against the Constitution. On a separate note, Con says he used the website to make an argument outside the character limits. As such, I request it be thrown out entirely. Character limits exist to confine both sides' arguments into an equal space. If it is not contained within the DDO entry, then it does not count. Citations are not hyperlinks to arguments.Appeal to Popularity: I understand what appealing to popularity is, and if my argument was, "everyone thinks morality is objective, so it is," then I certainly would be guilty. This is not my argument. What I am saying is all moral systems on earth operate from an objective core (notice that Con was not able to identify a single observed society that operates under subjectivism.) It's like a science experiment - we observe every moral code behaving in an objective state, therefore, the natural conclusion from that observation is that morality must exist in an objective state. We would not say the conclusion "every lab rat eats cheese, so cheese must be edible" is an appeal to popularity. It's a logical conclusion drawn from universal observation. Appealing to popularity involves opinion. I am appealing to observation.Con says that societies don't agree on things. While this is true, these disagreements are over how moral principles should be APPLIED, not the principles themselves. For example, societies disagree on what qualifies as murder. The principle is still the same - don't kill people without just cause. The disagreement is simply over how that principle gets applied. Disagreement actually strengthens objectivity's probability because if there was no sense of "this is how people should behave" then we would have little reason to disagree with one another.Opinion: I did not intend to offend my opponent, and I apologize if I did. However, Con's accusation of being "childish" is also ad hominem, so let's call it even. Since Con admitted their responses were not arguments, then there is not much more to say here.Objective standard: My assumptions are not baseless. If morality is objective, meaning there is some standard of right and wrong that all people are accountable to, then we would expect to see people holding each other to that standard, or at least trying to do so. Con plays the "game" by trying to list their own assumed behaviors under objectivity and subjectivity. These behaviors revolve around agreement. Con says that if morality is objective then everyone agrees and there is harmony. If morality is subjective, everyone disagrees and there is strife. This is completely contradictory to his accusations of appealing to popularity, because under this new definition I must now show that societies agree with each other to prove moral objectivity. But isn't this what Con has been condemning? This is confusing, and the only conclusion I can draw is that Con is attempting to change the definitions, which is not allowed. I already showed above that objectivity has nothing to do with agreement.Con once again basically concedes the debate. He writes, "Obviously no one likes anything that is 'indecent'. The subjectivity lies in what we consider to be indecent." Again, disagreement is over what should be considered indecent, not the principle itself that indecency is bad. Con admits this by saying it's "obvious" that no one thinks indecency is okay. This confirms my position. Logical impossibility: Con did not attack my actual logic here, so we must assume it stands as valid. Con says he does not think my answer is wrong, he is simply unconvinced of its truth (which conflicts with his earlier claim in Round 3 that his position was "saying that MORALITY is not objective"). Whatever my opponent's position, it is undeniable that he is saying my position is wrong or incorrect to some degree. If we accept this, then there must be a right answer that makes mine wrong. This brings us into the Multiple Modus Ponens string presented in Round 4, which inevitably leads to objectivity.My opponent admits that there is a true answer to morality's nature, but that it is unknown or unknowable. This only helps my position. If we agree there is some answer that makes all other answers by nature incorrect, that correct answer must hold in all circumstances. And thus, we arrive at our definition of objectivity - a truth that holds regardless of changing circumstances or opinions.The only way for my opponent to dodge this logic is to say that morality can still be "objectively subjective." That is a nonsensical term combining two opposites. It's like saying "dry water" or "solid gas." I will demonstrate using our debate definitions. "Objectively subjective" would be defined as: "morality's nature is subjective independent on whether anyone agrees with it or not." This doesn't make sense because that is our definition of OBJECTIVITY. Subjective and objective cannot have the same definition. So, conceptually, Con's term actually places "subjective" under our definition of objective, which means that if something is objectively subjective, it is still objective. This would therefore prove my claim. In conclusion, Con has not convincingly disqualified my evidence or logic. Con falls victim to his own definitions from Round 1, which is why he tries to use other words like "illegal" instead of "bad" or "objectively subjective." Con also tries to avoid this by subtly changing the definitions such as suggesting that moral objectivity means everyone would agree with it. I believe these efforts have fallen short.In Round 1, my opponent said I would achieve BoP "by demonstrating the existence of an objective standard or by any other method [I] may see fit." An objective standard clearly exists in the form of laws. Laws can be morals by definition as long as they categorize actions as good or bad, and they exist as an objective standard. Furthermore, I have demonstrated the existence of a moral standard by observing the behaviors of human societies. All societies agree it is wrong to be indecent or kill without justification. While they disagree about the application of those principles, the principles themselves stand as objective.My thanks to Burncastle. I had fun and I hope they did too.