There exists a moral system that which all humans ought to follow

Given that we only have a limited number of rounds remaining, I am going to go ahead and make my case, and allow for the Pro to give his rebuttals in the following round.*****FRAMEWORK***** I will Start by clarifying the importance of definitions for this round, Then will proceed on to making my case. Next I will provide a covered and detailed conclusion to wrap it all together. I did state it my opening Round in rule 3, that a forfeit would conclude in the loss of this debate. Given that the round 2 was posted in, I will leave it up to the voters to decide on whether they feel round 2 counts as a forfeit or not. So let's get this thing underway!*****DEFINITONS*****As I said, I would like to cover definitions exclusively, as they detail a lot about what this debate is specifically about, and underline the importance of the key values being argued. If one can understand the exact wording, and purpose of arguments, one can properly understand and argue the resolution. Given my opponent not stating any grievances with the definitions I have provided, we will use them for the remainder of this debate.First and foremost, let's hit that of morality.The resolution uses the word Moral.Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules ofright conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.http://dictionary.reference.com...This word to me is the most important key word for this debate, and is the crux of argumentation for both the Pro, and the Con. The word moral is defined specifically with the word distinction.I feel the word distinction is powerful enough to break this word down a little further.Distinction: therecognizingornotingofdifferences;http://dictionary.reference.com... This word implies that in order for an individual to make a moral choice, they themselves must provide their own reasoning and moral attitude as to why that specific choice is in fact moral or unmoral. Given that a distinction is made of one's own accordance, this definition already implies that humans must make a subjective choice in order to define morality.This my friends, will be the main underlying goal I will attempt to show to our audience throughout the remainder of this debate.The next definition which carries specific importance of this debate, one which I feel deserves proper notification, would be the word "Ought".Ought:(used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizenought to help.http://dictionary.reference.com...The specific part of this definition that rings out to me, is the phrase "moral obligation". This word under the resolution basically asks us to use moral obligation to determine whether something we should or shouldn't do, is moral, or immoral. I felt this word important enough to have it's own definition appointed to it,Obligation: something by which a person is bound or obliged to docertain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com...So now we have another subjective definition that basically implies that we have an obligation to make a certain moral decision. The subjectivity in both of these words, being that both imply that a moral decision is left up to the individual. Obligation using the phrase "Something by which a person is bound" rather than "People". So if someone has an obligation to do something moral, we see no objective terms in by which morality is defined. Why is this?It is because it is simply impossible to define morality in an objective sense. When breaking each word in this resolution down to it's core, we only get implications that a person subjectively only makes their own decisions. So how are we going to define this resolution with an objective sense, when all the definitions clearly point to human subjectivity? *****MY CASE***** C1: MORALITY IS LEARNEDThis contention widely resolves around what I feel is most important. Where an individual achieves their sense of "morality".In the link provided below, I will source plenty of information, as it pertains to the resolution both scientifically, and presents legibility to the point I will be attempting to make.http://users.rcn.com...This contention will be paraphrasing what instincts come in to play when developing "moral" behavior.First I am going to hit on "Sensitization"SUB A: SensitizationSensitization is defined through the above source as: "Sensitization is an increase in the response to an innocuous stimulus when that stimulus occurs after a punishing stimulus. "We learn are behavior through both physical and mental stimulation. The source above use the example of a sea slug reacting to touch, VS reacting to shock waves. I am going to example something similar, but a little less complex to understand, on how our ideals of right and wrong our developed.A child reaches his hand into an open cookie jar before dinner. The child's mother quickly slaps the child's hand away, before saying "No cookies before dinner!".The message the child receives is that eating sweets before dinner is inherently wrong. The child now reacts to the punishing stimulus, as he knows and recognizes his mothers view on eating cookies before dinner. The child now knows that this behavior is universally wrong. Whether the child will continue to reach into cookie jars or not in the future, will now be effected by the child viewing the action as wrong as he does so in future occasions.This stimulus can be very different though as well.SUB B: HabituationHabituation is defined in the source above as "Habituation is a reduction in a previously-displayed response when no reward or punishment follows."If a child coherently watches his father take a cookie out of the cookie jar each day before dinner, then the child will assume that his superior is making the right decisions. Everything this child knows is from the superior source of intellect; his father. In viewing his fathers actions, this child will respond in a way in which he believes is a "moral" action, as no representation of negative consequences were stimulated to his father from taking the cookie before dinner.C2: WHAT IS THE UNIVERSAL LAW?The Title of this point provides a spectacular question; one in which I hope the pro will be eager to answer. In order to establish a sense of a universal law in accordance to an objective morality, we must first understand what this objective morality is.And thus is the question I post to my opponent during this debate.SUB A: Individual viewsPeople have argued for centuries, on whether specific actions should be viewed as coherently right or wrong.We had the United States Civil War to decide on whether Slavery was immoral. Individuals in the south had grown up and learned throughout their whole lives, that Slavery was acceptable. Were they wrong if that's what they have learned? Or did the northern states just determine whether they were wrong or not based on their formulated opinions?We have many issues developing in our day and age. Abortion, Death Penalty, Gay marriage etc. We have plenty of arguments supporting either side to each issue. Give the definitions of this debate, what will determine which side is definitively right? How can one substantiate a statement their morals being incredibly better than anothers? I would like to source an article by Michelle Maise to provide further insight.http://www.beyondintractability.org...*****CONCLUSION*****During my arguments in this debate match, I will attempt to the best of my ability, to prove that a single standard of moral objectivity simply cannot exist.This is true though learned behaviors, and non-definitive laws on boundaries of morality.I await my opponents response.