Morality is not objective nor decided by any god but rather a freedom of people

I regret that my opponent feels this debate is being "put in a misshaped mold. " That is certainly not my intent. I believe I have responded to each of Pro's points in a fairly straight forward way. If my opponent feels I am not responding clearly, I apologize and invite them to clarify their position in the next round. Pro agreed with my definitions in Round 1, so those are the definitions I've been using. I will continue by rebutting Pro's points from Round 3. Pro's first argument claims it's paradoxical to say subjectivity must accept all opinions. I do not believe it is. The very nature of subjectivity, according to my opponent, is that "In a subjective moral system, everybody is free to do whatever they want with whoever they want and vice verse. " I agree. For that to become a reality, for it to actually exist, then everyone must actually be free to do whatever they want. Subjectively moral systems cannot reject the opinions of others. That would be contrary to its very definition. Pro next argues that it is still possible for the strong to impose their beliefs on the weak even if morality is subjective. I agree this happens all the time, but I disagree that it could happen in a truly subjective system. The existence of such behavior implies moral objectivity. The only opinion one cannot hold in a subjective system by definition is that one person is right and another is wrong. Once again, the very existence of this debate assumes that morality has some objective essence that can be argued over. Once the 10,000,000 tell the 5 "we are going to force you to stop raping because we don't like your behavior" they are appealing to an objective sense of good and bad that should be applied to other people. Comparing this claim to the ocean and rocks is a false equivalence fallacy because morals are not physical things. The bottom line is this: if morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as "bad" or "good. " Torturing babies is not intrinsically "bad," it's just a behavior most people currently choose to avoid. But this principle goes both ways. If there ever comes a time (god forbid) where most people suddenly decide torturing babies is fine, would it then be acceptable behavior? Do we really believe that? According to subjectivity, it would. If my opponent does not believe these are the conclusions implied by their position, then I would challenge them to think a bit deeper about what moral subjectivity really means. Next, Pro asks me to provide examples of morals that are unlikely to evolve through Natural Selection. I would respectfully ask them to re-read my Round 2 argument, because I gave some specific examples there. To list them again: helping the physically and mentally handicapped, avoiding cheating, lying, and manipulation (or any activity that gives you a personal advantage). Other examples include philanthropy, pacifism, and medical ethics. I agree that evolution can explain why certain morals exist, but it cannot completely explain all, or even most, of them. To respond to my opponent's last point, it's true that societies have different interpretations on how moral principles should be applied. However, the basic morals themselves are shockingly similar: Don't harm people unjustifiably, don't take things that belong to others, display courage, seek justice, etc. .. The question is largely about what these things mean and what they look like, but not about the morals themselves. I challenge Pro to identify a single society that does not advocate these basic principles. I believe morality's nature cannot be 100% proven either way. However, we can determine which case is most likely through observation and logic. We observe that most humans everywhere instinctively sense certain types of behaviors are right and wrong. We all sense that torturing babies is wrong, and we put people who do it in prison because we consider them to be "bad" people. No society encourages its warriors to be cowards in battle. No one believes the Holocaust was morally acceptable simply because the German government agreed with it at the time. Observations like this indicate that there are standards of behavior that are intrinsically "bad. " To convincingly advocate moral subjectivity, Pro must explain why these behaviors are wrong only if people believe they're wrong. Logically, moral subjectivity is an interesting hypothetical idea, but it does not exist in reality. Subjective morals are functions of personal opinion, or, to quote my opponent, "everyone has the freedom to decide whatever they see as good or bad. " As such, it cannot involve restriction of any kind. The key word is "freedom" - freedom to act as one chooses without interference or judgment from others. The lack of this freedom indicates the lack of true subjectivity. The only model in which this freedom actually exists is anarchy, which is not a sustainable reality. Therefore, logic also suggests morality most likely exists in an objective state. I look forward to Pro's reply.