All Morality is Relative

Introduction I would like to inaugurate this round by showing appreciation to my opponent for giving me his reasoning as to why objective morality exists. He has given me many many arguments and I will now begin my rebuttals. Rebuttals First, my opponent began by naming the two kinds of knowledge: 'a priori' and 'a posteriori'. He then argues that all morality falls under the third category of a priori knowledge. Under the third category, he made a list explaining the traits that apply. Then, he said that morality falls under most of them. He went through a list and explained the reasoning behind them. Some of them, however, prove my point correct. 1. "None of them can be proved." Yes, this is correct. Allow me to, again, give the definition of 'objective morality': Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Because of this, we can see that morality cannot be proved and is therefore not factual. My opponent, however, said he agrees. 2. "It's possible to be mistaken about each of them." If this is true, then we do not know morality is factual, and therefore is not. However, my opponent already stated he also agrees with me. 3. "We sometimes make mistakes in our moral reasoning." Yes, we do. Different people perceive morals in a different way. My opponent seems to agree as well. 4. "All mentally healthy people perceive right and wrong." Of course they do, but there are three kinds of 'right and wrong': Logical right and wrong: The difference between whether 1+1=2 or whether 1+1=3. Decisional right and wrong: The difference between walking out in the street and getting hit or waiting for the car to pass and not getting hit. Moral right and wrong: The difference between killing a person or not killing a person. My opponent seems to be specifically talking about moral right and wrong, so I will only discuss that. "This is evident in the fact that we consider sociopathy to be a mental illness. With the exception of sociopaths, the fact that we all perceive a difference between right and wrong…" This also applies to psychopaths. I do not consider sociopathy and psychopathy to be a mental disorder. Though they are in the minority, there exists more than one kind in each group: Severe and moderate. Ironically, I happen to be the perfect example of a moderate psychopathy, which means I simply lack a few emotions and my empathy level is not as high as others. Because of this, I do not not have exactly the same emotions as others. It is my perception of morality, not my following other people's rules. I have my own opinion of what morality is and my opponent does too. 5. "It seems unreasonable to deny morality." Yes, it is unreasonable to deny what other people think, however that does not make it factual. People sharing common beliefs does not make it factual. My opponent's morals are not factual, nor are mine. 6. "Even those who deny morality have an opinion of right and wrong." Again, I will assume my opponent is speaking of moral right and wrong. I have already discussed this point, so I will not do it again. 7. "Everyone thinks morality in our day to day interactions with people." This is true, yes, but not everyone thinks of the same morality. My opponent and I both know not to kill someone, but not everyone knows that. If one were raised to not be taught morals, they would not know the morality everyone else knows. They don't have a mental illness, they simply do not know others' morals. Conclusion In conclusion, I have refuted my opponent's argument and I believe I have proven that there is no such thing as objective morality. I look forward to my opponent's final rebuttals and arguments. Once he does so, the debate will be in the hands of the voters. Thank you.