Morality is not objective nor decided by any god but rather a freedom of people

Before I start, I'd like to address one thing. Pro suggests I have burden of proof. Burden of proof is normally assumed by the instigator presenting the claim, so Pro should have it for this debate. Since this was not clarified in Round 1 however, I am willing to accept a neutral BoP requirement for this debate. Either way, I most certainly do not have BoP. Pro begins by arguing that morality is simply an abstract concept defined in each individual's brain, similar to how different people's eyes detect colors in different ways. Just like a color blind person sees green differently than someone else, one person may see good and evil differently than another. The main problem with this argument is that it assumes human perception is the ultimate definition of reality. Unfortunately, it is not. Colors are simply our way of labeling different wavelengths of light. "Red" light, for example, is light with a wavelength of 620-750nm. So when you say, "that toy is red" you are actually saying, "that toy is reflecting light with a wavelength between 620-750nm." So, when the color blind person says "no, that toy looks green," they are saying "that toy reflects light in a wavelength 495-570nm." But if we measured the light's wavelength and measured it at 700nm, then the color blind person is wrong, even though the toy appears green to them. Light has an objective essence even though our human perceptions of it differ. This also applies to morality. Just because people perceive morality differently does not mean it therefore lacks an objective essence. As such, this argument falls short. Pro's next argument is that our morals today are those behaviors which evolutionarily helped us survive. In some cases, that seems true. Values like sharing and protecting children have obvious survival benefits. But other moral values seem to hinder survival. Helping physically or mentally handicapped people, for example, would have hindered early human survival. Giving up already scarce resources to keep alive people who couldn't work or hunt would be a great disadvantage. Also, behaviors like cheating, lying, and manipulating would have helped competing humans survive better, but these behaviors are largely seen as "bad." If evolution favors survival of the fittest, then our current morals cannot be solely explained by it. In order to discredit my point that every human society acknowledges morality's objective nature, my opponent simply needs to provide an example of one society that practices moral subjectivity. I challenge them to do so. Pro's argument about pain is a bit unclear to me. Maybe they could explain it more in the next round. As far as I can understand it however, this example still does not demonstrate moral subjectivity. It is true that the sensation of physical pain is unique to each person. People have different pain tolerances. Some people have rare nerve conditions where they feel no pain at all. However, this does not mean pain is any less "bad" for such people. Pain tells us when something might be dangerous. Some pain is obviously good - like the pain of working out makes your body stronger. But too much pain is always dangerous. Too much working out can cause injury or death. People who cannot sense pain can still experience danger. In fact, people with that condition often die from joint infections because they do not know to shift their weight while standing and sitting [1]. So, even the absence of pain does not mean the absence of pain's ultimate meaning - danger. Similarly, even the absence of a conscience does not mean morality doesn't exist. In response to if our species ought to survive, either answer is still an objective principle, so it doesn't really matter. If you say yes, that is an objective claim. If you say no, that is an objective claim. I suppose it is philosophically possible we ought not to survive. But turning again to a more scientific approach - making observations to draw conclusions about the natural world - humans possess a strong instinct to survive at all costs. So it seems most likely to conclude that we ought to survive. Pro suggests that even if morality is subjective, we can still interfere in each other's lives. The 99 can still imprison the 1. This is an impossible contradiction. In true moral subjectivity, we cannot interfere in anyone's life. The moment the 99 tell the 1 his behavior is unacceptable, morality is no longer subjective. The 99 appeal to a certain standard of behavior that everyone "ought" to follow. This is moral objectivity - standards of human behavior independent from individual opinion. This is the great hurdle that moral subjectivity can never overcome - if morals are truly subjective, there are no standards, no codes, no way to hold others accountable. Everyone's opinion must be equally acceptable, and there are no grounds upon which to tell someone else they are wrong. Moral subjectivity is more than just having your own moral opinions. True subjectivity must also acknowledge that everyone else's opinions are equally acceptable. In application, this means raping and murdering are fully acceptable behaviors. Pro must explain how this makes sense in order to support their position. This is not a reality we observe anywhere. Pro continually asks me to prove that we ought to survive. I do not have to prove anything -there is no BoP. I simply must demonstrate that my opponent is using inadequate logic and faulty arguments. I believe I have done this. [1] David Epstein, "The Sports Gene," Penguin Group, 2013.