Does good and evil exist?/Examining scenarios to prove statement

Since I am giving final thoughts, I will not add anything new to the debate. Instead, I will summarize what my opponent and I have discussed and briefly re-state my position. I am arguing that good and evil exist, and my opponent argued the converse (that they do not exist). The scenario I presented was that a person A was talking to a person B and then shot him in the head for no other reason than simply feeling like it. My opponent made the scenario clearer by saying that person A must be convinced that his action had no moral connotation"that is, A could not know that what he was doing was wrong and therefore did not find the killing of B immoral. My opponent argued that for good and evil to exist, there must be things that are moral and immoral, and since people disagree over what is moral and immoral, objective morality must not exist and therefore good and evil must not exist. For one group of people, a practice may be considered morally right, while to another group that practice may be abhorred (e.g. human sacrifice). I stated that while we may disagree on certain actions, society does share similar principles that we consider "good," even though how we act on them may not be agreed upon. Since these universal principles exist, we can say that good exists. I also stated that people can tell something is off when moral decision-making is not present. In the scenario above, person A has a condition which makes him think that killing is not something immoral. My opponent has made clear in his argument that he believes this as true. Both of us have acknowledged that people usually kill for some reason, regardless of whether others think the killing is moral or immoral. Based on this, I make the claim that overall, people are aware that killing has to have a cause behind it; to shoot someone without any real reason is off. While my opponent argues that this cannot happen in reality, I argue that someone who is unable to believe this has some part of moral judgment impaired. It"s similar to the principles claim I made in that people are aware there is a divide between one extreme or the other, and to be unaware tells us that the person"s thinking is off. Our common experience can therefore say something about whether morality and immorality is present. Furthermore, I made the case that people can choose to do something immoral even if they believe an opposite action is moral, citing an example of a dying man with an illness being denied a cure by another man who believes giving the cure is the right thing to do, simply because the man has no regard for the man with the illness. My opponent might argue that to the man with the cure, withholding the cure would be the moral thing to do, but in this case, the man knows that curing the sick man is a moral action but goes against it for the sake of doing the opposite thing. If there is morality, then there must be the opposite of morality. In summary, I argue that because we are aware of morality and immorality and can choose to do things we believe are either moral or immoral, good and evil exist. In a sense, I am arguing not for moral absolutism, as my opponent has been against, but instead for the things that we acknowledge are moral. To go against these things is what we ultimately considered immoral. The separation between people in terms of moral standards comes from how we carry out these principles and whether people are able to distinguish one morality extreme from the other. I did enjoy thinking about this issue, and I appreciate all my opponent had to say, as his thoughts helped me look at the issue differently. I hope that I presented my case to the best of my knowledge and that the voters will decide who made the better argument.