Uber-challenging (for me): Play Devil's Advocate!

FINAL ROUND.-As a note, I have not conceded any arguments, and I will explain why.-Relativisism does not defeat my case, morals can be absolute and still be relative to each other; I.E., again, within my equation, 5 and 2 are definitely positive, but one is more positive than another. Although they are relative to each other, even this relativity is absolute--there is exactly 3 between 5 and 2, like the morals. An absolute moral considered more moral than another absolute moral will always be a determinable exact amount more of absolutely concise morality. Killing the innocent, as stressed before, is the gravest crime of all time, and the basis for killing the innocent cannot be justified as moral without doing further absolutely moral things. This absolute immorality of killing the innocent can no way be rebutted; my opponent has failed time and time again.My opponent tries creating a paradox with K being a moral asserting itself not being a moral. This is illogical, paradoxes are always standing in the center of morality and immorality, as they cannot be determined or have illogical solutions to them. Thus, my opponent's example only shows that absolute morals exist, since paradoxes are absolutely neutral. While killing your grandfather, the action itself may be considered immoral on the basis, with the addition of the neutralizing objectively neutral action of going back in time, you cannot say for sure whether going back in time to kill your grandfather is moral or immoral. Of course, your action and thinking of killing is obviously immoral, but the resulting consequence is still objectively neutral, because we have no idea if you succeeded and killed your grandfather and yourself, resulting in an objectively immoral consequence, or if you don't succeed because you managed to prevent yourself from killing your grandfather by killing your grandfather, which is technically moral in the basic sense because you are trying to prevent a murder. (The lack of immorality could be explained by the fact that you are stupid and don't know that, in your action of trying to prevent yourself from killing your grandpa, you kill your grandpa anyways). Therefore as shown in this paradox, as there are two different possibilities (or the universe crashing), which lead to two different (but absolute) values of morality, objective morality exists within the paradox; it is neutral, zero, and is neither moral or immoral.My opponent tries to say that because I haven't rebutted the argument that morality is determinable from utilitarianism, my arguments collapse and fail. He is incorrect. It is because morality can be determined that it is objective. If Utilitarianism could not determine the morality of something, then morality is subjective because we can't determine if something is moral, immoral, or the neutral zone. However, because it is obvious if an action is moral or immoral, based on their harms and benefits, we can clearly draw a line in the middle and determine the absolute moral based on what harms and benefits it has. Again, with the killing of the innocent--my opponent has failed to rebut this, and I've shown at least one example of absolute morals.IN CONCLUSION-Killing of the innocent, with no further consequences, is immoral for obvious reasons, and is thus objectively immoral-I gave at least one example of an absolute/objective moral/immorality -ABSOLUTE MORALITY EXISTS.This has been a hard debate, and my opponent's arguments were very strong, but I believed he is wrong. I fulfilled my BoP, and I have won.VOTE ME.