there is no objective morality

Introduction My opponent demands that I prove a negative, though he repeatedly states that such a challenge is logically invalid. As a result I would ask voters to consider if I am even bound by the terms of the debate. As I see it there are three options. 1: No I am not, and the Burden of Proof actually falls either wholly or partially on my opponent. 2: Yes I am, but perhaps my opponent forfeits conduct. 3: Yes I am, I chose to accept the debate and have no right to whine about it now. Though I would urge the voter to adopt position 1, I can not argue that options 2 and 3 are invalid. I simply ask that the voter considers this and I will not mention it again. (NB: I never stated that I regarded this debate challenge to be objectively unfair). --- Now onto the actual debate. Definitions My opponent has not provided any definitions and though it is very tempting to use that omission to pull a dirty trick I don't generally approve of such things and I don't want to give my opponent any opportunity to complain about strawmen or red herrings. Objective: Having either physical or logical existence which is independent of the mind and not subject to personal bias or emotion. Factual, not mere opinion. Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. http://dictionary.reference.com... --- Arguments 1: The Argument Against Physical Objective Morality To date no one has discovered Objective Morality as an actual physical object. The Hubble Space telescope has never photographed distant objective facts, no Scientist has ever accidentally invented a substance called virtue, or had to worry about disposing of an unwanted barrel of immorality. Morality is moral conduct, an annoyingly circular definition and by definition a social construct. What form would the physical manifestation of a mind independent social construct take, the question is self-refuting and absurd. I believe I have proven beyond any doubt what so ever that Physical Objective Morality does not exist. 2: The Argument Against Logical Objective Morality Logic is of course already objective, logic concerns truth propositions that are mind independent and true regardless of emotion or personal opinion. The law of contradiction would tell us if something is a rock, it can not at the same time be not a rock. It's existence as a rock and it's existence not as a rock are mutually exclusive states, it has to be one or the other. This would be true regardless whether or not anyone agreed, disagreed or indeed if the universe contained no sentient life to even consider the issue. Morality as we know concerns conduct, what is ‘good' conduct is moral, what is ‘bad' conduct is immoral. The Good is this context is moral, the bad in this context is immoral. Conduct is not a matter of objectivity, but it is a matter of societal construct. It is merely therefore the collective opinion of a social group. Opinions are not logical facts, therefore Logical Objective Morality is self-refuting. It can not exist. To refute this point my opponent will have to demonstrate that though different societies have differing codes of conduct and therefore appear subjective, there does in fact exist a system of logical moral principles which when applied will determine whether the subjective values of that society are objectively true or false. I predict that he may attempt to argue the quality of a moral system can be judged based on factors such as the negation of harm and the promotion of happiness, this is indeed a very sensible way to judge morality. Why does it fail to address the topic of this debate? Because considerations of harm and happiness are subjective and emotive, and do not concern neither logic nor objectivity. I believe I have proven beyond any doubt what so ever that Objective Morality does not exist.