Morality is objective.

Alright, God, let's do this.Refuting Con's CaseHis entire argument attempts to answer the question "Are the principles of morality knowable?" instead of "Are the principles of morality subjective or objective?"This debate is not about two questions:1. What exactly are the principles of morality? (ie, would it have been morally right/wrong/acceptable to kill Hitler when he was a child, or is it morally right/wrong/acceptable to terminate an early pregnancy, etc.) 2. Is it even possible to know what exactly the principles of morality are?This debate addresses one question and one questions only: Are the principles of morality objective or subjective?Con thinks by proving the answer to the question "Are the principles of morality knowable" is "no", he has thus proven morality is subjective, but this is simply not the case. He states that when the answers to anything are currently unknowable, those answers are "dependent on personal opinion", such as the existence of God.I must say, I'm quite confused by this assertion. It's true that we cannot know for certain whether God does or does not exist; all we can do is guess. But to put it bluntly: God either a) exists, or b) does not exist. What we personally think on the matter is irrelevant to the actual truth, and our guesses on whether or not God exists will either be a) accurate, or b) inaccurate.To say that the existence of God is "dependent on personal opinion" (subjective) is to say God exists for some people and not for others, depending on what they think about the matter. It's a preposterous claim. My opponent may be prepared to argue the Holographic Universe theory (the theory that we each create our own separate realities, so no one is really ever right or wrong about anything, even mathematical truths), but he will certainly be fighting an uphill battle.Before we knew the Earth was orbiting the sun, before we even had the means to know the Earth was orbiting the sun, was the fact the Earth was orbiting the sun or not dependent on personal opinion? Of course not.My opponent reveals his tactic: "What I've done is I've proven you can't know the answer to moral questions, independantly of your own opinion. And that's what matters in this debate. That's my strategy."You should have picked a different strategy, unfortunately, because we are not arguing whether the answers are knowable independent of personal opinion; we are arguing whether the answers are independent of personal opinion.All of this being said, I believe it can be proved that morality is independent of personal opinion, which is what I outlined in my own argument. I'm merely pointing out that your entire argument for subjective morality doesn't actually even address whether or not morality is subjective. Therefore, you really have no argument at all for this debate.Defending My Case My opponent states: "The real reason why my opponent won't respond to my "heap of questions" is because they have nothing to do with his case - but they have everything to do with the motion, the full extent of which he conveniently ignores. I hope my opponent can manage to response to this argument in the next round."It's not going to happen. As I've said previously, we are not arguing what exactly the principles are; we are arguing whether they are objective or subjective. Your shotgun of questions are nothing more than a distraction from the issue at hand.P1: Some states of well-being are objectively better or worse than others.Con seems to concede I've defended this premise sufficiently. He does mention though that there can't be two objectively true answers if those answers are opposites of each other. I agree, but the opposite of "treat others as you'd like to be treated" is "treat others as you wouldn't like to be treated". And the opposite of "treat others how you feel they deserve" is "treat others how you don't feel they deserve".P2: Our behaviors and actions can effect the well-beings of ourselves and other conscious creatures, for better or for worse.My opponent says this: "Pro seemed to misunderstand one of my most important objections so let me clarify: it was what pro just labelled "P2" that I had no objection to. "P3" is where my objection was centered."I guess, then, my second premise is safe for now.P3: Morals are the principles concerned with these behaviors and actions which effect well-being.Con says people hold certain beliefs about what is right and wrong that are not at all connected to well-being. To those people, I say your morality is strange, insufficient, and irrelevant. Christians can believe eating pork is the absolute most evil thing in the entire world, but that does not make it true. Why call something "morally wrong" if no one is harmed?While I'm on the subject, I'd also like to address another objection by my opponent (given in his second round). He had a problem with the words "some" in premise one and the conclusion, as if that meant I was arguing not all morality is objective. The reason I say not all actions are objectively morally good or bad is because not all actions are moral actions. Eating pork, for example, is amoral (neither moral nor immoral). To reiterate: all moral actions are either morally good or bad, but not all actions are moral actions.C; Therefore, some actions can be named objectively morally good or bad, depending on how they effect well-being.My opponent continues his absurd analogy: "I'm concerned with winning a text-based debate. Winning such a debate is text-based. Am I therefore text-based? No, that's absurd."Yes, it is indeed. You are using a different definition of "concerned" than I am. You are "concerned" with this debate in the sense that you find it important or urgent in some way to participate in. The principles of morality are "concerned" with right and wrong in the sense that they are completely related to what is right and wrong. They describe what is morally right and wrong, and if right and wrong are objective, then morality must be as well, just as the principles of mathematics are objective because they are concerned with objective truths.All my opponent has done here is meddle with equivocation, the fallacy of using more than one definition of a word to confuse the issue.ConclusionI thank you for participating in this debate with me and the audience for reading. I urge the viewers to carefully consider both of our argumentation and vote accordingly.