Morality is objective

I will again address my opponent's points in order, using the same numbers he used in the previous round.1. Again, my opponent conflates law and morality; he claims that the objectivity of the former is proof of the objectivity of the latter, without justification. Laws are tools that we use to objectify (as in 'render objective') morality in order to avoid chaos, it is a sort of translation of morality in a objective language (which we call the law). My opponent accuses me of 'moving the goalposts', claiming that I imply that every country must agree on something for it to be objective, but that is obviously a strawman of my position. My opponent then says 'I realize laws are not the same as morals, but laws do legislate moral issues'. That seems to be an argument supporting my position instead of my opponent's; morals need to be legislated precisely because they are subjective. As I said earlier, laws are tools that we use to objectify morality. One could be tempted to say 'well, doesn't that mean that laws are making morals objective?', but the answer to that is no. Laws don't affect morals, since they are BASED on morals; we are simply taking something subjective (morality) and transforming it into something objective (laws) in order to avoid anarchy. In other words, if morals were objective, we probably would not need any laws.'“If the law says that you can't have an abortion, than you objectively can't have an abortion according to the law, but that doesn't mean that abortion is objectively morally wrong.” Actually, it does. If the law categorizes something as wrong, and enforces the categorization as true whether or not you agree with it, then it is objectively morally wrong according to our definitions.' There is a subtle problem in this paragraph, which is illustrative of my opponent's error; the last sentence should actually be: '... then it is objectively LEGALLY wrong according to our definitions'. This is yet another example of my opponent conflating morality and law, as if they were one and the same. 'For the country A and country B example, Con asks “is abortion right or wrong?” Good question. They are correct in saying that it cannot be both, but either answer still proves objective morality. Saying abortion is right is an objective declaration.' I agree, and that was exactly the point of my question; answering this question with either 'right' or 'wrong' would indeed indicate an objective morality. The problem is, this question CAN NOT be answered objectively, hence what I said about objective morality being impossible to prove. My opponent wouldn't even have to give us an actual answer, he would only need to give us a way to find the answer, but he didn't. I indeed embrace the fact that abortion is neither OBJECTIVELY right nor OBJECTIVELY wrong.'Con says that laws are accepted solely based on popularity. That is not true.' Actually, it is true and here's the proof: http://www.uic.edu... (that's only for the US). My opponent then brings up two court cases that had an unpopular outcome in the eyes of the population, but I fail to see how that is even close to relevant. Once a law is created, then it becomes objective and is true regardless of everyone's opinion. Again, my opponent is conflating law and morality.'Con also says that judges and juries give their own subjective interpretation of the law, which is untrue. Judges and juries do make individual decisions, but those decisions are still based on the existence of an objective law. They do not just make up random standards based on personal opinions.' Judges and juries give their own subjective interpretation (which is a pleonasm by the way) of the objective standard that we call the law.2. My opponent rejects my claim that he is making an appeal to popularity, and follows with:'This argument challenges my opponent to demonstrate that all people do not have some right to life, health, happiness, etc… I am making a claim that most people sense we have these rights intrinsically, and my evidence is that people fight to regain them if they are taken away. Con must refute that claim. ' This is a shifting of the burden of proof, and a ridiculous one at that since I have already said that the existence of objective morality is unfalsifiable (which is why I don't believe it exists). There is also another appeal to popularity in this quote: 'most people sense we have these rights intrinsically'. This would still be an appeal to popularity even if I were to accept it as true (which I don't, since it is an unsupported assertion).'I am making a claim and challenging Con to refute it.' Unfortunately for my opponent, that is not how the burden of proof works.3. My opponent asks: 'If subjective reasons have meaning, from where does such meaning come?' From ourselves, that is the definition of subjective.'How can someone rightly get upset about an act if there are no objective principles against which actions can be evaluated?' Subjective morality does not mean non-existent morality; I can still be upset about something even if it is only my opinion.'One might suggest you can get upset just because it hurts you or puts you at some disadvantage, but that is still an objective maxim!' It is objective to the person that believes it, just as it is objective that I like strawberries, even though taste is subjective. Objective subjectivity is still subjectivity.4. My opponent responds to the 'appeal to consequences' by answering some questions:'some Middle Eastern governments give husbands the right to beat or stone their wives for various offenses. Is that ok?' In my opinion, it is not OK. In their opinion, it is OK.'Nazi Germany gave the SS the right to murder Jews. Was that not wrong?' In my opinion, it was wrong. In their opinion, it was not.'The United States once considered black people as property, is that acceptable?' In my opinion, it is not. In their opinion, it is (back in those days).'The Nazis were just as correct in murdering the Jews as the Allies were in saving them. They were simply two different subjective belief systems fighting for dominance. Is that true?' In my opinion, the Nazis were not 'correct' in what they did, but yes it was indeed another subjective belief system.'Is that the reality we observe in our world?' If he is talking about whether there are different belief systems in the world today, then yes, obviously.'My claim is that it is not, and my opponent must demonstrate why my claim is false.' Again, my opponent is shifting the burden of proof by asking to prove... what exactly? That some countries have different morals than us or that other countries are not objectively wrong? While the former is trivially easy (Russia, the majority of the Middle East as well as the majority of Africa, etc.), the latter is downright impossible because objective morality is UNFALSIFIABLE.'I am not appealing to consequences; I am appealing to the reality we observe in our world.' The only thing that I see is that not everyone agrees on everything. But even if they did, that would be an appeal to popularity. I would like to know what my opponent sees in this world that points to an objective standard for morality WITHOUT appealing to popularity.5. Once again, my opponent is trying to change this debate from 'Morality is objective' to 'Some things are objective' and since I agree with the latter, I won't waste my time on this point.6. My opponent then tries to save his Gravity analogy. He compares the gravitational pull with 'morality's pull', claiming that we can't escape either of them. Well, even though my own personal sense of morality tells me that it is good to give money to beggars, I don't always do it. 'In a more extreme example, no culture on earth thinks it’s ok to torture babies for no reason.' Appeal to popularity, clearly and undeniably.Sorry, I'm out of characters.