There is an objective morality

The Nature of ObjectivityAs my opponent indicates there is a point of contention with regards our definition of objectivity, my opponent does make a partially valid response. For instance, he argues for a moral system that 'functions void of opinion' and furthermore reminds us that "sciences like sociology and psychology are in fact in part based off of the very premise that there are objective facts to be known about subjective experience."However the problem is that for there to be objective morality there does need to simply be a code of morality void of opinion or even that there are objective facts, what is required is that moral propositions are objective truth statements.Thus for instance,Bob thinks killing is wrong, may be an objective statement. In that his brain physically contains the thought that killing is wrong.However for objective morality to exist we must be able to make objective moral statements that are true, or false. Thus if Bob was to say "killing is wrong" or "It was wrong for Jane to kill Sarah" we must be able to analyse those statements and determine if they are true or false in a manner analogous to logic or mathematics. To address every single discrepancy in our assumptions on the nature of objectivity would land us in a semantic quagmire it is also superflous. The specific issue, that of objective moral truth statements is a critical point that I believe invalidates my opponents case.My opponent states,"If your desire to go to the bar with your friend overrides your desire to have your noise hair trimmed then that’s an objective fact to be know about your ideal subjective experience, while if your desire to have trimmed noise hairs did in fact override your desire to go to the bar with your friend then that would also be an objective fact to be known about your ideal subjective experience. In neither situation is there any kind of violation. "However the point remains as to how this is a moral equation, my opponent equates ideal experiences, or desirability with morality. If morality is founded on ideal subjective experiences then actively choosing a less desirable course of action must be immoral, but this is not an objective moral system, and it is not a moral system under normal uses of the term. Bob and JillI do not understand my opponents argument here.Bob's ideal experience is to rape Jill.Jill's ideal experience is not to rape Jill.My objections are,1: Why is morality equated with ideal experience? What is the objective basis for this.2: How if there ideal experiences and therefore their moralities differ, can there be a single true objective morality? Are they not both moral relativists, does not the situation illustrate moral relativism?To summariseMoral Statements are not objective moral truth statements, therefore there is no objective morality.Ideal experience is not traditionally the basis for morality, my opponent has failed to make this connection and even if he did there is no objective reason for this, so he would in fact be a moral relatavist.My opponents case is fatally incomplete and I do not believe he has met his BoP. He has provided a starting point, but the case in unfinished.