Morals are objective.

Alright, first of all, I would like to mention that I don't completely understand the analogies my opponent is using. It seems likely from the way he writes that English is probably not his first language, and because of that the analogies he uses don't completely make sense. So I apologize if I miss a point my opponent made if it was done within the context of an analogy, just point out if I do, restate your argument, and I'll clarify. Also, I'll be jumping around and quoting my opponent. My opponent does not actually understand what he is supposed to be affirming, and what I am supposed to be opposing. "my opponent and I, are in large agreement about the standards of when killing is moral. we even both agree about circumstances affecting what is moral." It is not I that was agreeing with you, but you with me. My point was that you weren't arguing for objective morality, but something else entirely different that's called situational morality. My opponent states the correct premises in involved in situational morality, but incorrectly calls it objective morality. I understand my opponent said they were the same thing, and I'll get to that next, but it's very important that you realize what morality actually is. As I said earlier, morality is concerned with the behavior if a being. Objective morality is taking this completely literally. For instance, in a place of void where there is nothing but the being itself, there is still the capability of morality, because of how the being behaves. In objective morality, the situation at hand does not change how the person should behave. It does not realize what the greater good might be, and is strictly about how the being acts. This is objective morality. Situational morality is how a being should behave in a GIVEN SITUATION. I upper-cased that last part to make it clear that that's what situation morality adds to the equation. It gives the being a different way it should act per situation. This is usually dependent on the greater good, but it could also be for the greater bad. That depends on the beings understood morality. "But you see, 'situation morality' is not the opposite of 'objective morality'" As Con, it is not my place to necessarily affirm the opposite of what you affirm. It is my duty to negate what you affirm, and show why it is incorrect. Finding an opposite is not necessary, and actually impossible. Some things there just isn't an opposite for, much like there is no opposite to objective morality. For instance, banana has no opposite. Neither does television, airplane, or gasoline. A lot of concepts also don't have opposites, like time. So to say again, I must simply negate what my opponent says, and show why it's wrong. I am obviously negating it, and have shown it is wrong. I am not affirming there is chaotic morality, animalistic morality, or any other kind of ridiculous opposite my opponent tries to procure. So, I realize this has been a rather short refutation, but I feel it's all that was needed. I have shown that my opponent is in no way affirming objective morality. He is, in fact, affirming situational morality, and naming it something different. There is not much more to say on the matter, and I sincerely hope my opponent will present a case for objective morality before trying to present the a case for some invisible third party. Regarding morality on a bumper sticker argument, I'm not quite sure what this means. Explain?