Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

I have mathematically disproved your theories already.You mathematically disproved nothing; you phrased your conjecture algebraically.Thus your refutation amounts to "I am a bigot, everybody who disagrees with me is wrong."That would be a great summation, again, if you had so far been able to establish that morals are unique in being the one thing within the sphere of human knowledge that is exempt from the laws of thought. No bigotry is involved where one is actually right.That is not true. When I hear of 40 children being killed in a bombing, my initial reaction is not "Oh no, what will become of the species?"Neither is that of an advanced ape. Instead, it feels what is commonly known as "sadness."You cannot understand why honour demands that I kill my wife's murderer? People these days...I'll take that as "I don't know." So that's "I don't know" against "Murder as an inherent evil." Golly, which do you think is more reasonable? An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.He may murder again.This sounds like the beginning of a "greater good" argument. Action versus omission. Omission is always the more moral choice. He also killed your wife, fool. If your morals do not dictate that you avenge your family's destruction, then that is your loss. Mine, on the other hand, demand it.There's nothing particularly reasonable about what ultimately amounts to spite.Honorable, sure, but given that you weren't even able to define honor when I asked, you're hardly justified to act in its name.There are logical arguments for and against all morals.That's not how logic works, but alright. Give me some examples. And better ones than your appeal to rape, because that's turning out to be really disappointing.If you do not disagree that they are disparate, then you must understand why mathematical examples are inappropriate in a moral debate.Like I said, mathematics is always relevant. The fact that they are, in fact, separate studies, doesn't change the fact that certain principles are all-encompassing. The principle of non-contradiction, for example, or the fact that if you take one thing and put it with another thing, you invariably have a pair of two things.Don't state that a brain is an organ to prove the theory that stars are too.Dude, you've already submitted a mathematical argument. Well, I mean, not argument, but conjecture. But either way, you implicitly agreed that mathematical expression spans broad expanses in doing so.And again, I didn't actually make a mathematical argument. I made an analogy to take the place of actual logical principles (which I'm sure you'd just deny the effect of here in the topsy-turvy subjectivist "everybody's right about everything" land of morality if I submitted them).Not evolutionary at all. Creating more children is the logical way of ensuring that your genes are preserved.Why is the preservation of one's genes a logical/moral good? And no, "I just think it is!/That's just what my morals tell me!" is not a valid response. See? Morality is hard!!!You said "any question".And I stand by that. If someone asks you, "What's your favorite band?" and you answer "U2," and someone comes to me and asks me the same question, "What's his favorite band?" and I don't answer "U2," then I am wrong (or you were lying and I'm right, or we're both mistaken). This is not a difficult concept.