Without God there is no objective basis for morality.

"In practice we accept that morality is part of a life strategy that can be defended and defined objectively" I am well aware, and have conceded, that morality varies with respect to culture. For instance the human rights violations in the Arab world and China. This does not mean that violating objective rights is good for society in these cultures. Respecting human rights is demonstrably better for a society and these cultures are simply wrong. "Moral claims are defended based on their objective relative merit as a life strategy" I have not conceded that morality is relative. I have conceded that there are many demonstrably good goals and strategies to support them. Varying with respect to culture is not the same as dependent on culture. Moral codes vary in there effectiveness independent of the culture or opinion. "Saying morality is not objective is the same as saying that moral claims are not objective.” I have repeated this several times; I do not believe there is one moral system that works for everyone. I have suggested there may be a loose moral framework that works for the majority. Individual claims about a moral action are judged within the context of the goal and the preference of the actor. "Morality exists independent of personal prejudice, emotions and cultural norms" Yes the Spartans treated their children much worse to achieve a similar goal. I am well aware that there are primitive cultures that have demonstrably poor goals and ineffective strategies, which is what I have been saying. I’ll look at two scenarios: Scenario one: cultures look very different but the vast majority have a primary goal to achieve a better life and encourage or allow the same in others (in fact, I am not aware of any without a similar goal but ignorance can create some poor definitions of ‘better life’ that can be corrected). If this child abusing culture agrees we can work with them. We can demonstrate that, although mental and physical toughness are good, there are more important goals to focus on to improve their family and collective lives. Since this culture has a strong value on toughness we can show them more effective humane ways to increase resilience without causing extreme harm to their society by damaging their children. We can argue that weaker children could be made stronger to benefit the society rather than, “weeding them out.” We can demonstrate that there are many forms of toughness beyond the physical: emotional, intellectual, social etc. that they should value as well. The facts are on our side. Scenario two: We find that the culture doesn’t care about a better life or well being and believe that to suffer and cause pain and suffering is the best goal to pursue. The goal of human suffering is demonstrably a poor life strategy. The culture is flat wrong. In a sane culture an individual like this should appropriately be treated for mental illness. "Morality in this respect in analogous to chess, there are many effective strategies." Again, I have conceded many times that there are many objectively positive goals of morality. When I said, “in this respect,” in context I was saying that there are many effective strategies in chess. “If morality was objective, one of these objective tools (theories) must be wrong.” Again insisting on one goal and strategy is special pleading I agree that two objects move relative to each other and that morality is not arbitrary but not that this is relevant. If we have two objective ‘tools to discuss’ morality and we are arriving at different answers then there may be multiple effective answers or interpretations of the issue that are satisfactory. Throughout the debate you have insisted on one goal and strategy but this is in no way demanded in other areas of life. Is anyone saying, “There is no objectively good management style because this varies with (but is not dependent on) culture and personal preference!”? Think again of any other aspect of human life. Are there no objectively good soccer, communication or public speaking strategies because they vary across cultures and are related to preference in a similar way? Varying between cultures is not the same as being dependent on culture. Like any other strategy, morality works better, worse or is comparable to others. I may have a unique perspective on this issue but I would ask anyone who bothers to read to consider it and the quality of my arguments. It is also relevant that my challenge was for my opponent to present one of two pro cases, which I was prepared to refute. An objective morality would allow us to affectively borrow ideas across cultural lines and to criticize a culture that is committing moral atrocities even if the practice is intimately linked to culture or personal opinion. There are many moral strategies that are demonstrably beneficial and many others that are inferior or even cause harm to those who have accepted them simply because it is encouraged by their culture.