Objective morality exists

By opponent brings up an issue that value judgments can't be made from facts alone and asserts that I am committing a naturalistic fallacy. I'll explain why this isn't the case.Objective morality, as explained in P1 is "an argument claiming humans beings all have an inner sense of what is wrong on some issues."Whether the value judgements that humans perceive are actually "right" or "wrong" are irrelevant. If it is a fact that all human beings have a shared inner sense of right and wrong on some issues then objective morality evidently exists. The argument doesn't depend on the value judgments made on what is specifically "right and wrong" but simply that it is a fact that all human beings share this perception.I'll illustrate with an example as to why my opponent's claim of the naturalistic fallacy are false:(1) Eyes can see (2) you shouldn't observe dead bodiesand(1) all human beings share moral sense on what is right and wrong on some issues (2) you shouldn't murderThe 1 statements are factual and 2 statements are value judgements. My opponent claims that I am making value judgements by claiming the existence of objective morality but I am merely claiming factual moral perception of what is right and wrong on certain issues. The actual "right" or "wrongness" of those issues is irrelevant to the definition given and to the argument itself.My opponent asserts that I must define what natural is and what basic human instincts are. He then goes on to say that I must show why something unnatural is the same as wrong. But I don't have to show this. My burden of proof is just to show that all human beings evidently have shared inner sense of what is right and wrong. Shared moral standardsIf all morality is subjective, then every society has a subjective sense of right and wrong. If all societies share constant, universal moral standards then all morality is evidently not subjective. All societies have held infant rape to be immoral regardless of culture, nation, religion, or time period. If it is a fact of consciousness that raping an infant is morally reprehensible, then objective morality evidently exists and it follows that not all morality is subjective. This is empirically observed by the behavior of every known society in existence. If it is naturally derived and instinctual it would still be objective. It simply means that it is a fact that you know that raping an infant is perceived as morally wrong regardless of how your moral perceptions became ingrained into your consciousness.Necessary justificationAnyone that commits murder, theivery, rape, etc,. is punishable by law unless necessary justification is given. For example: I can't kill my neighbor unless I argued that it was in self-defense. My necessary justification for killing him then, was that it was in self-defense. Its important to note that laws are founded on ethics and ethics are founded on morality. Society is merely a collection of individuals. So societies are a collection of individuals with moral sense. How these societies behave are empirical evidence as to whether morality is objective in certain cases or whether all morality is subjective. Societies clearly show that they impose and uphold laws stemming from a shared inner sense of what is right and wrong on some moral issues and why they won't tolerate rape, murder, theivery, etc. unless necessary justification is given otherwise. This is evidence that not all morality is subjective.Over to con.