Morality is objective

I congratulate Con on a well fought battle, this has been fun so far. At the risk of sounding too repetitive, let's revisit our definitions one more time because it seems that Con is continuing to offer rebuttals that are inconsistent with our definitions: Morality: How we categorize actions as good or bad Objective Morality: These morals (i.e., categorizations) hold true regardless of whether anyone agrees with them or not. So, for this debate, if I can demonstrate the existence of any categorizations of good and bad that hold true in spite of popular agreement, then I will have proven my position. I believe I gave such a demonstration in the American legal system. My comment on moving the goalposts is not a straw man. Con very clearly implied that laws cannot be objective if two countries disagree on them, which was not a condition for objectivity provided in the definitions (see above). My opponent accuses me of improperly conflating morality with laws. I would ask them to re-read their own definitions. If a law categorizes any action as good or bad, then it is a moral according to Round 1. Given that a law can also be a moral, then any law that holds true regardless of whether people agree with it is objective. Thus, we arrive at an objective morality. Con commits a non sequitur by saying "if morals were objective, we probably would not need any laws." Morality's nature has no bearing on its compliance. Con agreed that laws are objective, yet people still break them constantly. Con also tries to explain that laws are solely based on popularity by throwing in a website as "proof." This is an appeal to authority fallacy, and it's not really an argument because it's never explained. I now will address the accusation that I am attempting to shift the burden of proof (BoP). BoP is often misunderstood. This is not a court room, BoP does not mean proving beyond a shadow of a doubt. It simply means that I must provide compelling positive reasons for why my position is likely to be true. I must make claims and support them with evidence. It is Con's job to refute my claims by discrediting or disqualifying my evidence. Refuting is not shifting burden of proof. If I asked Con to prove why morality is subjective, that would be shifting BoP. Put more simply: I make claim X using evidence A, B, and C. Con must refute claim X by convincingly disqualifying evidence A, B, and C. Con does not need to make a counter claim Y. I am not asking Con to prove a counter claim, I am simply challenging him to show why my evidence should be disqualified. Moving on to the appeal to popularity charge. I am appealing to a commonly observed reality that all societies operate under, using their nature and behavior as evidence. This is similar to saying "every chemist uses the metric system." So, if this debate title was: "chemistry is expressed with the metric system" then an appropriate piece of evidence would be that every chemist uses the metric system. Therefore, in our debate titled "morality is objective" the fact that every society does indeed recognize morality in an objective state and behaves accordingly is a valid piece of evidence. To refute this point, Con simply needs to identify a society that operates under subjective laws (aka, morals). I will now address my opponent's long list of "in my opinion" statements. Personal opinions have no authority in debates. It is fine and good that Con has personal opinions about these matters (which are, quite frankly, really horrifying, but I will avoid the ad hominem), but those opinions are not valid arguments. And lest my opponent again protests against perceived BoP shifting, I would remind him that relinquishing BoP does not mean avoiding the need to make any arguments. To defeat my BoP, Con must still objectively (no pun intended) demonstrate why my points should be doubted. Responding with personal opinions does nothing to this effect. My opponent asks me to identify observations that point to an objective standard of morality. In science, we observe how subjects behave under certain conditions and draw conclusions from those behaviors. Let's explore the logical behaviors associated with subjective and objective morality. Behaviors associated with the existence of objective morality would include: holding other people to common standards, condemning the actions of other societies, a belief in the existence of universal and intrinsic human rights, and feeling wronged if people treat us in disagreeable ways. Behaviors associated with subjective morality would be: allowing people to live according to any standards they see fit, allowing other societies to act how they choose, rejection of the intrinsic nature of human rights, and admitting that other people can treat us in any way they feel they should. Let's see which behaviors we observe in reality: We do not let other people live according to whatever standards they choose. You could not walk down the street naked even if you thought it was ok. You would be arrested, or at the very least, frowned upon. Even on a nude beach there are still taboos for ways people expose themselves. While it is manifested in different ways, the underlying objective principle is that people should not expose themselves indecently to others. We condemn the actions of other societies. The Americans did not tell the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, "hey, we really didn't like that but if you think it's ok then go ahead and do whatever you think is right." We recognize the existence of basic and intrinsic human rights. When anyone tries to take them away, people fight to get them back because there is a sense that they intrinsically possess them. Finally, we feel wronged if people do things to us that we dislike. It is only possible to feel this way if we apply our personal beliefs about unacceptable behavior on other people. The second we evaluate someone else's actions by our own personal moral beliefs, we have appealed to morality's objective existence. Therefore, I propose that we observe universal behaviors that indicate the existence of moral objectivity. Finally, I'd like to once again point out the logical impossibility of moral subjectivism. I will do this using modus ponens. Modus ponens is reasoning that says if X then Y. The confirmation of the condition X guarantees the result Y. In step 1, if an answer can be wrong, then a correct answer must exist that renders other answers wrong. Given the question - "what is the nature of morality?" my answer is objective, and my opponent claims that answer is wrong. Therefore, a correct answer must exist that renders my answer incorrect. The next step is - if an answer is correct, then it remains correct in all conditions. (According to modus tollens, if it does not remain correct in all conditions, then it is not the correct answer, and we return to step one.) The final step becomes - if morality has a correct nature (objective/subjective), then that nature remains true in all conditions. However, IF morality has a nature that holds true in all conditions, then it fits our definition of objectivity. Something cannot be objectively subjective. Therefore, all my opponent can do under the flag of moral subjectivity is admit that we are all equally entitled to our own opinions and that there is no correct answer. Thus, if there is no correct answer then this debate must end in a tie and is pointless. In conclusion, while I hate to dip into semantics, I cannot allow Con to escape their own definitions. Laws categorize good from bad, therefore they are morals by definition, and they are objective. If I am correct in my application of our definitions, (and I believe I am), then my opponent conceded this entire debate when they wrote, "Once a law is created, then it becomes objective and is true regardless of everyone's opinion." If a law can categorically be a moral, then my position is correct. Looking forward to Round 5