Uber-challenging (for me): Play Devil's Advocate!

Oh no, it's Ajabi. Ah, at least we can say we agreed and put this as our debate for the Tier Tournament! I wish him luck within this debate and tournament.I hope the third time is a charm and I finally win against Ajabi. Or maybe 5th time's a charm and Ajabi becomes the first person to beat me down within this series. We'll see. Morality is absolute and objective for the reasons below... 1. It is determinable via ultitarianism Ultitarianism is the moral ethical system that bases actions based on their harms verses benefits, and that if the benefits outweigh the harm, then this action will be considered "moral". This is easily supported, as for the good of others, even if one recieves harms, there will be more net benefits and thus we can determine morality just by this one same category for everything. 2. It is absolute because it is set in stone as an equation. My opponent will probably mention how because ultitarianism can fluctuate, the same action performed on different people have different moral values and thus aren't objective. However, he is wrong. In fact, because the actions have a certain set value upon them, it becomes and absolute "equation" due to how the moral or immoral actions work out. We can in fact even "measure" certain morality values based on how harmful or helpful they are.For example, here's a scenario:-You save an innocent man's life.(If you save an innocent man, with no further bad consequences, then it is objectively moral. Objective morality=1)-You save an innocent man's life, and you buy him ice cream. (Even better, Objective morality=2)-The ice cream turns out to be poisonous. (Although you mean him good, the ice cream harms him and your point that meant to help him is deducted from you, and you're backtracked. Objective morality=1)-You cannot find the antidote in time and the ice cream kills the man. (As the consequence if buying poisonous ice cream, it kills him. However, due to your original goodness, you still have some morality points left for you, because you meant no harm and you really didn't want to kill him. Objective morality=0.5)-However, if you had bought poisonous ice cream on purpose instead of accidentally, it would not be understandable, and thus you have an objective morality of zero, because saving the man's life and killing him equal out, 0+1-1=0. As you can see here it makes sense and now this man has a lack of morality within him and everyone will in general despice him and think him crazy for going through so much effort to "Earn a morality point" only to purposefully lose it. Even when in total, my story ended up with a man with zero morality points, he was still considered "bad" by society, so we know you must have a certain amount of points to be "good". Of course, little actions build up and count too. The point system may be enlarged for the realistic effect, I was only making an example with an easy scenario. For example, in reality, buying the non-poisonous ice cream to help your friend may be 100 points, while saving lives is actually worth 10,000 points. And of course, the harms are counted too. While the ice cream may cure the heat and taste delicious, it may have fat in it that collides with your friends' diet, explaining why it's only 100 points in contrast to the 10,000 points from saving lives.And obviously, even these absolute values can shift, but they can only shift some, of course. If the ice cream was improved more points could be given to it, and if the life wasn't worth saving, then the points could be deducted. But the basics are there, more are added as benefits are found and harms are made, points are deducted and subtracted, it is definitely clear what is good or bad. 3. We all have general ideas of what is "wrong" My opponent will probably point out that specific actions change at time and the morality of those actions are not objective but rather subjective. I understand that, indeed, human sacrifices were made in the ancient times and of course they were considered "moral" by the native people, but if you think about it, there's added variables to the "Equation" I mentioned above. Those people who made sacrifices believed that it would help the Great Supreme Being above hold the world together, or even give them good luck. However, if this is not the case, which, it certainly isn't, since we don't sacrifice any more, of course it has negative morality points, just not to those people. It has negative morality points especially if nothing really happened and the people that were sacrificed were completely innocent. And of course, nobody can make the argument that killing the innocent is moral/good. In their arrogance, these ancient people suffered, and while in their heads they thought it "good", in reality they were just ignoring the fact that all of their sacrificial-of-the-innocent actions were immoral. I hope Ajabi understands my arguments. I could understand zip-nada from his debate, so I had no choice but to seek out my own opinion.Good luck on your construction of arguments/rebuttals.