An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God

Pro had made his points and so have I. Rather than just spend my closing statement rebutting again. I will just 're explain my points and give my sources. I made two points for my main argument.1. A subjective moral code is based on Empathy and Sympathy. Human beings have always had some way of explaining why they think something is some way. Examples: Religion, Upbringing, Environment, etc. etc. However these all fall back to empathy and sympathy like Pro said sort of like a "golden rule" scenario now I know he said that that's not true but I'm not saying it is I'm saying that it's kind of like that. Even In the argument if God is contingent for a moral code to exist then his code would be basically the "golden rule" look as the ten commandments and such. Moving on I am merely presenting that because we base our morals, our morality on this concept that if everyone thinks it it will become objective because it will become a fact that it is wrong to do this because everyone thinks it is so it is and no one will do it. Pro misunderstands this and seems to think humans don't express these emotions on a day to day basis but they do. Just because a region of the world or a single person don't doesn't mean that it isn't what we do. To use the Pro's own example just because everyone before the 16th century though earth was flat doesn't mean it was. Now taking that point Pro states the I have misunderstood morals definition. When in all reality I haven't when I say morals I am referring to morality and the definition of morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."Principles can he implemented meaning they are subjective meaning they are what people think. Pro seems to forget that because we get our morals from our morality that means they are similar. So, because morals are, as the Pro stated "concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior." That means that it is right or wrong concerning to human behavior based on their morality.Allow me to explain what I meant by facts not being the same as a moral code. A fact is something that no matter what you think it is what it is, for example you say all you want that trees don't produce oxygen doesn't mean it does. With a moral code you can say it's wrong or right and there's no way to say it's objectively wrong. So when Pro used the 16th century example I was explaining how it was a false equivalent. Pro then states "Con states: "Pro claims me stating how a subjective code can become objective is not evidence for my side."In fact, I did not claim this wasn't evidence for Con's side."But earlier he states" This statement effectively says nothing to promote Con's point..."You all can draw your own conclusions but to me this seems like he's saying "This is not a point, this is not evidence." Rather than "Thats not true because..." At this point I would like to say that my rebuttals that turn into red herring are because Pro's points were that of a red herring. I'm not denying that when I away from the debate I do but I am merely rebutting Pro's points as I should in this debate. Pro makes the point that because certain people can get away with breaking the law they are irrelevant to the experience of an objective moral code existence. So let me ask you this. "If there is a procedure that is 99.99 percent going to kill somebody but someone survived is that to say the procedure is safe?" No! Thats absurd! So just because a few exceptions exist doesn't mean that something can't still he objectively wrong without a God. The issue with Pro's syllogism was that it had wrong facts because of the wording. If Pro had worded it properly I would have had a rebuttals for it but it wasn't the phrase "All mammals exhibit homosexual tendencies" doesn't imply some members of the species it implies all members of the species show homosexual tendencies which is not true. But it's not a sound argument because it's not based off of true facts, at all! I apologize for the second one my computer deleted my argument for some reason the point I was making was that while it is true they formed subjective code, but people believe them to be objective and therefore making objective codes without God. Pro continues with his law argument. I agree no human law is perfect but the reason for that is to ensure justice can carry out. For example: if we just assumed that someone killed someone else because they were there when police arrived then people would associate them with being a murderer. However, we have a system so that they can defend them self. Do bad guy's slip through it, yes. But that's what happens it sucks but it happens. And just pretending it doesn't won't help if anything it makes matters worse. I will end my debate with this:Pro claims that I have not proved my point, that I haven't rebutted his points and that I haven't presented a sound argument that a moral code is not contingent on the existence of God but it's not for my place to say that he is wrong or that I'm right, because I'm biased. However so is he, so you can take his word for it that I didn't prove anything but I ask that you just ask yourself, re-read the debate, not once, not twice, but there times. Really look at it. And if don't agree with me vote Pro, if you do vote for me. But don't just vote for who tells you who's wrong from within the debate itself you are human beings and you can draw your own conclusions. I would like to thank Pro for the chance to argue, and I hope we can do this again soon. Sources:I'll be honest I got all my definitions from just typing it into Google.