morality=right+intent

Okay, just going to do a defense/rebuttal from the last round. And I'll give a summary of the debate so far at the end to make sure we're all clear on what's going on.1) Subjective morality.So here's what my opponent is saying. He says morality is subjective (determined by individuals, societies, groups of people, etc.). However he said it's guided by absolutes. His example is a mathematical equation, which doesn't logically follow.He also says moral decisions should be based on thought and emotion, which is entirely subjective. There's no objectivity about that statement. Some days I think babies are the cutest things ever, and some days I get so angry I want to punch one in the throat really really hard. Does it become right because my emotional state changed?I think so, and my opponent might think so (jury is still out on that one for now), but that means that morality is not absolute. Because punching a baby in the throat was wrong one day then right another day.Or to use a more tame example, lying. Is it okay to lie in some scenarios? Or is it always wrong? Is it okay if you're trying to protect someone? The problem is that in order for you to say that it's abolutely or objectively wrong, then you have to agree that the underground railway for slaves was moraly wrong, even if it helped innocent lives.If you try to draw a line where lying is okay if it helps someone, then you essentially make it subjective, because who decides if you're actually helping someone? You could be trying to help someone but end up causing them emotional distress. Kind of like the example my opponent brought up about the poisonous apples. You're trying to help, but it may not be the right thing to do according to the person receiving the action.2) Killing is anti-socialYes it is, and that's why I approve of it in some scenarios. Basically what I'm saying is that my opponent hasn't proven that to be a bad thing. Some people are anti-social, and a lot of them are handling your money as accountants. So far, being anti-social doesn't look like that bad of a deal.3) Questions without answersHere's what the debate has been so far. I have made a lot of definitive statements using well-researched definitions and fairly solid reasoning. My opponent has made some statements (some of these statements being contradictory), and all of them are backed up by a question without an answer. I know it's supposed to be a rhetorical thing, but my opponent needs to provide strong answers for his side to be considered, especially without the use of evidence to any degree.4) Math is irrelevantAllow me to go over this real quick. I understand why my opponent likes math. It's absolute, logical, and simple. However, in the question of morality, you can't relate math to the principles we're debating. If you do, there must be a very clear and well-stated connection that is not breakable.I can say that puppies are adorable because 1+3=4, but that doesn't logically follow. That's not a legitimate reason to back up that point.Sumarry: My opponent makes the statement that morality is subjective and absolute but doesn't explain the concept. I've thoroughly explained my concepts, and even if I haven't, I'm sure my opponent will let me know in the next round. I would also like to point out that my second point in my first round was dropped in the last round. The only thing my opponent said that sort of addressed it is that killing is anti-social, but as I've pointed out, he hasn't proven that to be a bad thing.Good luck next round!