Morality is subjective.

My opponent has argued that Examples cannot be used to deny the existence of objective morality. However I disagree. Since morality cannot be proven, or tested on. It can only be theorized about. Pro and Con are both arguing that morality is a thing. So examples are the best way to provide evidence for both sides. My opponent has argued mainly that my examples happened with justification. I disagree with this statement. This is the explination of a subjective opinion. For example imagine a family which is against washing their dogs. And they view a family that washes their dogs with this kind of logic "They justify washing their dogs by saying that it makes them cleaner, but there's so many chemicals in the shampoo it's wrong to subject a dog to treatment like that" Examples I have provided are not a justification. Also Con's point about murdering for pleasure is irrelevant to this debate, It's about subjective morality vs. objective morality. Because not everyone gets pleasure while murdering someone. A desire to kill for pleasure as serial killers do is speculated to be a hormone in the brain not functioning properly essentially nulling the hormone for empathy. And before my opponent tries to take advantage of this point. Let me say that Empathy and Moral decisions are different things. Someone can be empathetic and still feel like killing someone is morally correct. My opponent argues that ted bundy's words hours before his death are a lot more reliable than one's when he still had time. This is completely un-true. Perhaps if he had come to terms with his execution which he certainly hasn't He states multiple times in the interview that HE DOES NOT WANT TO DIE, This interview was his last hope to change his sentence. And he did so by attempting to manipulate everyone around him. While he is in a cell he even states that there is no moral difference to him from eating a piece of ham, and the ENJOYMENT he gets out of finding his victim and murdering AND RAPING HER. for his own enjoyment. My Opponent has also stated that it was too late by the time they showed remorse that they were already too far into the death sentence. This proves my point exactly, they tried to appease public eye by making them look like guilty psychopaths. The aztecs did not justify anything. Appeasing gods was the reason for which they killed. My opponent is trying to bring up his 'murder for pleasure' argument which is irrelevant because he is implying that everyone kills for pleasure but doesnt because they have a moral boundry. I agree people don't kill for no reason at all, that would make a purposeless existence if everyone is doing things for no reason at all. The aztecs commited brutal human sacrifice and did not view it as wrong. While roman catholics devastatingly tried to stop it even in the face of death themselves. The aztecs said "hey buddy, we're doing this so the universe can keep sustained" They didn't apologize or try to clear a guilty conscience. Same with the KKK, and the Tanzina african hunters. They murder and kill giving no dignity to the victims. The white supremacists hunted blacks like animals through woods. If Con wants to disprove my point he needs to prove that these were done with a guilty conscience and that everyone didn't want to do it. And hated themselves for shooting other people like animals. My opponent has essentially stuck with the murder for pleasure and rape against someone's will thing saying that these are not recorded ever. This is because people do not get enjoyment from killing someone for no reason at all. This is something only psychopaths experience which they repeat time after time. Because as I have proved, ted bundy doesn't give a rats a$$ about anybody but himself and the pleasure he can get out of raping a 12 year old girl then brutally killing her. Con is completely ridiculous to argue that the words of a pathetic liar hours before his rightful death have any kind of evidencial credibillity for his argument. TED BUNDY DIDN"T GIVE A SH** ABOUT HIS VICTIMS. He didn't care what he did. He cared about himself and the effects his actions had. So, Like I have stated. In order for Con to disprove my resolution, he needs to argue that my Examples, the people commiting "moral atrocities" in our eyes. Felt incredibly guilty and didn't want to do it. Murder for no reason at all other than pleasure is not objective morality because most people don't think about it or want to commit it. Because there is no reward for themselves in it. They will just get into legal trouble which is why nobody does it. Not because everybody thinks its wrong. As for rape for pleasure. This happens all the time. I do not need to provide evidence for it. Con needs to provide evidence that it is never morally admissable when it surely is. because it happens ALL THE TIME.