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

I thank Nye for this debate. The reason I accepted was because I actually like Nye's debating skills; I also find him very brave, I for one would never initiate such a challenge. The motion before the House is: This House Believes In Absolute Morality! Now I believe I should start of with some onus explanation. The onus rests entirely upon my opponent here, to show nothing less than []M which means necessarily morality is absolute. I have defined the terms needed below, I feel that no other term is needed. I must say that my opponent's case sufficiently confuses me. I have, to tell the truth, no idea what he is saying for the most part of his argument. It seems that makes it rather hard for me to rebut what he hath said. As I am negating the resolution it is perfectly all right for me to attack Nye's arguments from multiple tiers. I will therefore both argue for moral nihilism, and even if such a thing exists such as moral and immoral, I will argue that it changes. Thereby I shall make use of the 'even-if' strategy so famous in parliamentary. R1: Determinable From Utilitarianism: This point seems strange to say the least, since utilitarianism is the most famous theory of moral relativism. My opponent some how claims that this theory leads to a form of categoricalism. This is most perplexing, to disprove this point I think I should simple post an example of Utilitarianism demonstrating moral relativism. Let us imagine a scenario where one can preform either action X, or action Y. Let us suppose that action Y is on average worse than action X. According to Utilitarianism here action X is moral to do. Now let us suppose a scenario where one can do either action X or action Z. Let us say action Z has better productivity than action X, now it would be immoral to chose action X. This is in accordance to Utilitarianism the theory my opponent stated. R2: Set In Stone: To be honest I literally understand nothing of this argument: I mean it makes absolutely no sense to me. I do not see how the conclusion leads to absolute morality, and I cannot see any coherence. From what I can gather, Nye seems to argue for an objective quantification of actions. This is circular logic unless my opponent can prove the existence of a Being who can for all intents and purposes provide an objective quantification. As long as this is not provided it is either circular logic, or it is unproven. Then it also remains if a person feeds an old man is this inherently moral? It seems my opponent agrees that if the ice cream is poisoned then the act is immoral, and if it is tasty it is moral or more moral. This mean moral relativism, therefore my opponent concedes. R3: General Idea of Wrong: My opponent has yet to prove this point. If he believes that the idea of virtue is a priori, then he must necessarily prove this. Also this argument seems beside the point because this does not mean that morality in itself is absolute, even if this argument is correct (something it is not) it just means that humans agree on what is moral. In deontological logic we can say that I believe X, such that X is Universe or A(X). This still does not mean that X is P in nature. It just means A(X)>P. So while we may believe X is something, that does not make X that way. The resolution collapses.