Moral Objectivity

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking jamccartney for responding. When I read his rebuttals, I considered his view, but concluded it was incorrect. I will begin by refuting his rebuttals of my statements and then I will attack his main argument of the second round. Rebuttals "In these statements, my opponent has neglected to give an argument. He has given an example, but can only back it up using his opinion," states my opponent. I believe my opponent misunderstood me. I feel he did not receive the message I attempted to send. Both my opponent and I believe in the preciousness of life. It can be backed up with plenty of proof. such as the fact that we are the only species of our intelligence in the solar system - to our knowledge, at least. I believe my argument was implied. As I said myself, ""Again, my opponent makes the claim that morality is the "right stance" and that immoral acts are the "incorrect stance", but does not give evidence to back his claim up. Then, my opponent says [im]morality "fails at presenting facts". I do not understand what facts are there to be presented by immorality. There are none. As I said before, there is no proof of the "right" morality..." I do not understand how my opponent could possibly not understand the statement I placed before him. Contrary to my opponent's belief, morality can be founded upon facts as well as opinions. Therefore, I have made a change to the resolution of this debate: Morality can be both an external and internal opinion - objective and relative. I have now only begun to realize that both my opponent and I are somewhat wrong. Morality is relative when it comes to stealing a single dollar or something of that sort. It is objective when it comes to crimes made illegal by the law. In my opponent's previous debate about this topic, he said, "I think what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust was immoral, but the Nazis did not. If you look at it from their perspective, they were doing God's bidding, for they had "Gott Mit Uns" inscribed on their belts, which translates to "God With Us." Though I, and I assume my opponent as well, thinks the Holocaust was wrong, it was technically not because not everyone thought it was wrong. The only reason we can criticize them is because they were breaking the laws that certain people put into place because they thought the laws were moral." I, as a native German, know much more about this topic and I can say that his statement here is untrue. The "God Mit Uns" is just propaganda. The Nazis were not doing God's bidding. They were exterminating the Jews because Adolf Hitler wanted a pure German society, the Ayran race, which is a topic for another time. "In conclusion, my opponent has given no viable proof that morality is objective, while I have shown that there is no proof of morality. I have shown that morals are strictly opinion and not fact." Morality has proof. Con just has not put effort into finding that proof. "Now, let's talk about moral opinions. I have met people who would find it very immoral to steal $1 from a generally wealthy man. I, on the other hand, would not find it very unethical, for it is only $1. This difference in morals is direct proof that not everyone has the same levels of morality. Because of this, morality is not factual." This statement actually fits my opponent's definition of 'external opinions'. My opponent himself said, "External opinions are, as my opponent said, things like evolution. It is a fact, however not everyone accepts it." Morality is a provable fact. If my opponent still believes that ALL morality is relative, I must say, I believe he lacks sanity on this issue. Please do not view this as an insult or a motion to offend my opponent. It is a true belief of mine. Because morality can be both objective and relative - objective most of the time - my opponent and I are both wrong being on the Con and Pro sides, respectively. I urge the voters to take this into consideration. I did rush this argument a little, so please do not pick apart everything I say. Please accept my view and simply vote fairly. That is all I ask. This debate was interesting and I await the first votes to be placed.