morality=survival truth

I would like to begin by saying thanks to my opponent for the productive debate opportunity, of which I am sure he put much effort into. Secondly, we must consider the fundamental premise of this debate, the assertion that "morality = survival truth".Whereas, morality shall be defined as a system of distinguishing "right" and "wrong", two concepts only able to be defined in relation to morality. And we can therefore assume that the proposal enclosed in the title of this argument is that there is an objective system of morality, with no qualifiers, simplying being defined as "survival truth".What is "survival truth", you might ask? It is the truth of survival. While sounding like a trivial rearranging of the words, this exposes much meaning, such that surviving, and therefore living, is an objective truth. Theresuch, the objective truth of your survival is the only true definition of morality. Thus being, your objective life is the definition of morality. This means that we can exclude all subjectivity to being relevant to morality. Even subjective life.Therein lies the crux of my opponents argument: "no king is knife resistant, no king is a god". What did he mean by this? Well, "no king is knife resistant" simply refers to two things: A king The property of knife resistance We must dissect the assumption that my opponent is trying to challenge, that such a king may be knife resistant. And therein lies the main theme of this debate today. No matter how powerful you may be as a mortal, no matter the subjective value you have to others, objectively, this king may die anyways despite this subjective value. Subjective value has no bearing on your objective life, and is objective life is objective value, it can be inferred theresuch that objective value is not determined by any sort of subjective value you have. And thereafter lies the profound words: "no king is a god". A god is a figure of worship, a god is something that has no objective presence in our world. Gods cannot be perceived, at least in the Judeo-Christian manifestation of the omnipotent, and thus its value derives from subjectivity. The subjectivity of perception, that subjectivity of others viewing the god through their own eyes. And a king is no god, a mortal cannot have his subjective value be all that he is. My opponent asserts that the objective value takes precedence over the subjective, as a king can never be a god. Therein lies the fallacy that I shall win this debate upon. That being, the inherent omnipresence of ourselves throughout time and space. Objectively, we can determine whether something is alive in the current moment. However, looking at a broader view of the timeline, we can see that everything has been alive at some point if it is alive. Everything, every speck of matter, every single material and objective item will necessarily have to have been a part of some system considered "living", as the infinite size of the universe and the infinite span of time conclude, as every possibility will be exhausted when an infinite amount of time is considered, as stated by the famous monkey typewriter problem. We can therefore say that, since morality is defined as an objective concept, and time is subjective, morality is timeless. And if morality is timeless, we must consider all time equal in terms of morality. Theresuch lies my argument. Everything could be considered alive for a fraction of the infinite time in the universe, and a fraction of infinity is infinity. Therefore, everything has been alive for an infinite period of time. And if everything is alive, and morality depends on your objective state of being alive, everything is either "right", or "wrong", depending on whether being alive is "good", or "bad". And there lies meaninglessness. Morality is a duality, it must distinguish right and wrong. There must be a wrong to compare a right to, a good to compare a bad to. And in the overall reference frame of all matter in the universe, declaring everything good xor bad destroys the entire meaning of morality, as there is now nothing to distinguish. If we follow the central question, the central proposal of this debate to its conclusion, we can see that morality becomes meaninglessness. Because the morality will cease to distinguish anything, and such, the whole premise of this debate becomes meaningless. We can't set morality to be equivalent to something when that causes morality to be meaningless. Because you're not setting morality to anything. You're just destroying it. Maybe the Bible disagrees with me though. After all: "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." As the king of this debate, I can't be God. But perhaps, maybe I can quote what he did.