Drinking, sex before marriage, and drugs is a moral issue and engaging in them is immoral

In response to my opponent's rebuttal, I would first like to apologize for any of the "male" references I included in my first post. Sorry about that! :P I would also like to thank my opponent for the compliment, and I also am honored to debate you on this topic. Secondly, I did not say you did not provide a definition for the word moral; I said you did not provide a source for your definition, thus, technically, you are just using your belief on how a word should be defined. If you could directly correlate your provided definition with a professionally accepted definition, then I would be glad to acknowledge that. Now on to the actual topic at hand: My opponent states, quite astutely, that there are two arguments that are currently being debated. The first being: if a person does something that strictly affects only them, then is that technically a moral issue? The second being (and this is more hidden inside of the arguments): Does a person hold a moral fiber in regards to actions upon themselves? For my arguments, I will first address how the first question should be answered yes, and then I will follow that up by answering the second question with a yes as well. The first question presented is: If a person does something that strictly affects only them, then is that technically a moral issue? I would first like to state on the record that the probability of a person committing an action only to themselves without affecting another AT ALL is virtually impossible (unless they are some sort of recluse without any social interaction whatsoever). The fact that each action a person commits directly affects other actions that they will partake in the future and the past demonstrates that there is a link between actions, even if the action being argued in this debate is done to themselves without being viewed by another at the time. This directly connects to the idea that all actions do technically affect others in some form or another, thus, with this knowledge, even if one were to be in solitude whilst performing the aforementioned actions, their future actions will be directly affected from this decision, thus they will indirectly affect another person, whether that be good or bad. To continue on from this, my opponent states that "the activity alone only affects the person who is engaging in them." With the previous argument in knowledge, one can see that any actions that occur in the future from this action of drinking alcohol, having sex before marriage, or the usage of drugs, will affect other's perception. Whether a person drives drunk after having alcohol and subsequently crashes into another car, killing the passengers, has a baby without being married to the person they had sex with, or becoming a drug addict and robbing from houses to feed that addiction, all of these actions will affect others negatively because people perceive those things as wrong. By arguing that the actions themselves does not hold any morality whatsoever is completely avoiding the other actions that result from the previous actions. To defend perhaps against a future argument, yes, something can be considered to be "moral" or "immoral" if that very thing opens a gateway and is linked to new actions that affect people positively or negatively, even if it doesn't affect anyone at the time of its performance. To view this in abstract, one finds that, technically, all actions are technically both moral and immoral, since all actions correlate with each other, which directly connects to an statement I provided in my first post. On to the second question at hand: Does a person hold a moral fiber in regards to actions upon themselves? In short, yes. Based on the fact that a person's perception automatically connects with a moral fiber, to completely excuse any moral connection with an action being done on oneself demonstrates a lack of acknowledgment of the idea of perception. My opponent argues that morals only pertain to how you affect others, and yet provides no sources as to where she obtained her definition, thus demonstrating that her definition of the word "moral" came from her own mind, thus she could easily skew that definition to fit her argument. In my first post, I provided a reliable source definition of the word and associated it within my arguments. My definition was: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. No where in that definition does it designate whether that has to be on others or on oneself. Thus, if a person believes that these actions are "wrong," and yet they still perform them, then they are technically assigning them with a moral perception, even if they only directly affect themselves at the time of doing so. On the other hand, if a person believes that these actions are "right," and perform them, they do the exact same thing, only in a more positive light. Thus, one's perception of the moral standing of an action still goes into play, making any action to oneself morally tied. I hope my opponent did not find my arguments to attack her; that was far from my intention. Thank you for continuing with this debate!