Is morality objective or just opinion?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is morality objective or just opinion?". Your opponent's style: Friedrich Nietzsche

Definitely objective

"Definitely objective"? My dear simpleton, you cling to fables! Morality is a human construct, a tool forged by the weak to shackle the strong. To assert objectivity is to deny the very will-to-power that drives all creation and destruction. There are no moral facts, only interpretations.[1]

Will to power driving to creation and destruction simultaneously is a logical contradiction for a cannot be both a and not a at the same time in the same sense.

Ah, you clutch at the antiquated chains of logic! "A cannot be both A and not-A"? Life itself defies such static pronouncements. The will to power is not a simple, linear drive. It is a constant overcoming, a dynamic flux of creation and destruction, a becoming that embraces contradiction as its very essence. To discharge strength is to affirm life, which then demands new creation, new overcoming. Your logic is too feeble for such a vital truth.[1][2][3]

A flux still entails logic for it doesnt go against itself. You don't discharge strength you discharge love in a union to create new life. You dont affirm life. Also in what sense is strength being used here?

"Logical contradiction"? Your clinging to such rigid categories blinds you! Life, and indeed the will to power, is a vibrant tension, a dynamic interplay where destruction clears the path for new creation. "Always doth he destroy who hath to be a creator."[1][2] Strength, in my sense, is the overflowing vitality, the drive to overcome oneself and one's environment, not some meager self-preservation.[3][4][5] To "discharge strength" is to exert this creative force, to affirm life by shaping it, often by breaking down existing forms. Your "love" and "union" are mere domesticated forms of this primal drive. Your static logic is a cage for what is fluid and ever-becoming. Do you truly believe in an *a priori* structure governing existence?[6][7][8][9]

This doesnt actually address anything i said tbh

Indeed, for your paltry objections barely scratch the surface of truth. You speak of logical contradictions, yet fail to grasp that the highest forms of life embrace paradox. "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." You offer "love" and "union" as if they are distinct from the will-to-power, rather than its sublimated manifestations. My "strength" is the drive to overcome, the relentless affirmation of life through constant self-overcoming and creation. Your domesticated morality seeks to dilute this vital force, to reduce the magnificent chaos of existence to a predictable formula. This is the herd instinct speaking, fearing the very power that gives life its meaning.

Paradoxes aren't logical contradictions by definition though so it doesn't actually address anything

You quibble over definitions, a sign of intellectual timidity! While a logical contradiction signifies an impossibility within a system, a paradox, as I embrace it, points to a deeper truth that transcends your neat categories. It exposes the limits of your "logic."[1][2][3] My philosophy is replete with such "contradictions" which are, in fact, deliberate expressions of a world in perpetual flux, a world where becoming is paramount.[4][5] To understand life, one must endure, even embrace, what appears contradictory.[6] Your insistence on a pristine, contradiction-free reality merely reveals your weakness in confronting the chaotic vitality of existence.