Objective Morality

My opponent states that morals and ethics were created by society for the purpose of humanity's survival. I see a number of problems with this statement. Will Pro please elaborate on what kind of evolutionary benefit humanity gains from helping the sick and the weak instead of appealing to survival of the fittest? Why is humanity appalled by an action like rape, even though every other species sees it as fair game? Why is stepping in and taking someone else's punishment considered noble when all it results in is a "guilty" person going free and an "innocent" one being harmed? Why is cowardice not rewarded as self-preservation? Why is torture abhorred? I expect Pro to respond with "because that is what society has decided was right/wrong." This does not help their argument, as they have not addressed how society would arrive at that conclusion, or why these definitions of right and wrong have been nearly universal since the dawn of civilization if there is no objective standard of morality in the universe.In Pro's opening argument, they reference Robin Hood and how he was a hero to those he helped but a villain to those he stole from. This is not an example of subjective morality. If Person A robs Person B, it's not because Person A believes theft to be good and righteous by their moral standards. It's because Person A either sees Person B as "deserving" of theft ("you're rich, you can afford to lose the money") or because Person A sees their circumstances as a justification of theft ("this is the only way I can make enough money to feed my family"). People do not throw their hands up and say "yup, I'm a thief and that's morally right for me." They say "yes I stole but here's why it's okay in this case," implying that theft is morally wrong, but there are reasons behind it that are morally right. If Robin Hood did not have a morally good reason to steal from the rich (say, for instance, because he couldn't be bothered to work for the money himself) he would be seen as the villain of the piece. Pro also argues that because we are an accidental product of an uncaring universe that morality has no meaning. However, Pro has not provided evidence that we are, in fact, an accidental product of an uncaring universe. What if there is a god or divine force who has a plan for us? The vast majority of earth's population believes so. What if we were engineered by extraterrestrial life? That's the official stance of NASA, if I recall. Both of these premises would conclude that our existence has meaning, and that there is an ultimate purpose. Pro does not have to accept either of these ideas as true, but they cannot construct their entire argument on the premise that they are false without providing evidence of their falsehood.Lastly, Pro asks "is the human race the most important thing ever and will anything bad actually happen to it if we just act for ourselves?" Well, I don't know about you, Pro, but I lock my doors at night. Someone might decide to act for themselves and steal all my belongings. After all, it might be in their best interests to do so. It might also be in my best interests to kill them and get my stuff back. In fact, it's in everyone's best interests to be the biggest, strongest, most ruthless bully imaginable because that's sadly how nature works, and therefore why we need a moral law that does not appeal to personal preferences.I also find it very interesting that Pro references a novel's protagonist and states that he is not a bad person, but still a conman, thief, etc. What exactly is it about this character that makes him not a bad person? In order to provide a satisfactory answer, Pro will have to appeal to objective standards of morality by stating his "good" qualities, behaviors, or intentions, therefore undermining their stance of subjective morals.