Resolved: Objective Morality, (or "moral truths") are non-existant

I shall continue with my refutes and impose a new argument.First off, I appreciate that my opponent has provided a definition for morals. However, it is not a trusted definition; allow me to provide a new, cited definition:Moral: Of or relating to principals of right and wrong behavior (1)There are many definitions, but this will suffice for now.Refuting the rebuttals:contention one"So, if someone finds it more beneficial to act selfishly, wouldn't you say that the morals of that person are selfish morals, not that they are rebelling against what is morally correct for all human beings?"Let us examine this question in further detail:"wouldn't you say that the morals of that person are selfish morals...?"An obvious flaw. my opponent accepts the fact that selfishness is an aspect of morality. Furthermore, my opponent is aware of the fact that selfishness is negative to the progression of humanity; If selfishness is an aspect of morality, it must be universal- therefore Universal Morality exists.contention two"some morals are created by individuals, but some morals are created by society, and the society dictates what is acceptable, and what is unacceptable, depending on what benefits it as a whole."As I have stated in round two, society is nothing more than the embodiment of a grouping of individuals. My opponent claims that morals are created in order to establish peace. Unfortunately, this argument cannot be refuted in terms of Objective Morality. As I have stated previously: "whether or not the government condones the practices of immorality is irrelevant (the government being, any form of authority over a group of people). The governments are run by human[s], therefore, the governments are subject to the same code of morals that their citizens must also follow."The society in question could "choose" whether or not to follow Objective Morality- however, this does not mean that Universal Morality does not exist. Let us look at a metaphor: If every person on the planet refused to believe that gravity existed; what happens to gravity, does it cease to exist? Of course not! In the same way, Universal Morality continues to live on, regardless of whether or not a society chooses to follow it. In this case, my opponent's previous argument is invalid, as it is based off of an opinion.Evidence for Objective Morality: -My opponent proposes that Objective Morality does not exist, by proposing this, Pro condones Moral Relativism. If this is absolutely the only truth regarding this matter, absolutes exist. If absolutes exist, this means that Moral Relativism cannot exist, because Moral Relativism is not absolute, it is relative (hence the name).-If my opponent states that Moral Relativism is not absolute (to debunk the concepts of Absolutism), they are claiming that Objective Morality is also not absolute. But this would be impossible, as Objective Morality is the only alternative. Concluding Round Three: I have taken apart my opponent's arguments and have exposed the uncertainty that lies underneath. I look forward to the rest of what my opponent has to offer.Now, for Pro.(1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...