Morality is indisputable.

As much as CON might enjoy conflating the terms "indisputable" and "objective", I would like to point out that they are not identical and I have made absolutely no claim that "morality" requires the quality of "objectivity". I would like to politely ask CON to please focus on the debate resolution stated clearly in round 1 which is quite simply, "Morality is indisputable" which is abundantly clear, based on the definitions presented explicitly in round 1. I am merely pointing out that, according to the most common and mundane definition, morality is required to have the quality of indisputability. Please stay on topic. I would like to refer to another quote from CON, "My opponent first states that moral claims are not [or rather must not be] disputable [by definition]. In that regard, he suggests moral claims, like his definition of morals, consist of facts [or rather, moral claims should be held up to the standard of the definition of morality]. Yet, in the following paragraph, he says that moral claims can [often] be disputable [if they fail to meet the standard defined by the definition of morality]. This is [probably not] a fatal flaw in my opponent's argument. By admitting that moral claims can be disputable, then why can't one's morals [one's morals should be expected to meet the standard of the definition of morality, this does not mean that all moral claims meet this standard] be disputable? " It would seem that CON also enjoys conflating "moral claims" and "morality" and "one's morals". In the same way that all truth claims do not actually meet the standards defined by the definition of truth, not all moral claims meet the standards defined by the definition of morality. Put more simply, just because someone says their claim is moral, this does not make it automatically immune to investigation. It is very likely that when a so-called moral claim is subjected to proper scrutiny, it will fail to meet the definition of morality and would therefore probably be better described as something like a "strongly held belief". I would like to refer to yet another quote from CON, "To refute my arguments about how morals are based on my experience, my opponent said that experience and subjective ideas are not "indisputable," and therefore "[by definition] cannot be considered 'morality. " However, my opponent has never provided substantial claims that morals were ever "indisputable," aside from basic definitions [which CON has made absolutely no attempt to dispute, so they would seem to stand quite firmly]. Because my opponent has failed to provide a proper burden of proof and examples [pure logic doesn't seem to carry any weight with CON apparently] demonstrating how morals are indisputable, [CON makes a deliberately misleading assertion:] my opponent cannot conclude that morals are "indisputable. "" Yes, my key support for the debate resolution "Morality is indisputable" is explicitly stated in round 1. CON had full knowledge of my position before accepting this debate and has yet to negate the resolution in any way. CON's round 1 attempt to drag "a higher power" (item II) into this is especially erroneous. Please focus on eviscerating the logic of my round 1 support instead of merely conflating terms and jumping randomly off-topic. I hope this clears up our (possible) misunderstanding.