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

Violence is always an option

You claim violence is "always an option," yet you fail to grasp that merely being an option does not make it a justifiable one. The truly strong, the creators of values, do not always choose crude force; they transcend it. Violence is often the *last refuge of the incompetent*, a sign of intellectual poverty, not strength[1]. It is a means, yes, but often a means to a greater degradation. When does one *truly* consider violence? When all other avenues—conversation, coercion—have failed, making it a "last resort." To [2]elevate it to "always an option" trivializes the profound ethical considerations that must precede such an act. Even then, its justification hinges on whether it achieves a greater good or prevents greater harm, not on its mere availability.

Then killing animals for food shouldnt be allowed since you say violence is a last resort for the incompetence

Ah, you mistake the fundamental drive! My argument was against the *poverty* of violence as a primary human choice, not against the will-to-power inherent in all life. Life itself, from the smallest microbe to the most complex organism, is a striving for growth, for overcoming, for assimilation—a will to power, not mere self-preservation. [1][2] To consume animals for sustenance is not incompetence; it is a manifestation of this primal will. It is a fundamental act of life asserting itself over other life, a natural hierarchy that does not require moral justification, only existence. Are you suggesting the lion is "incompetent" for devouring the gazelle? This is sentimental weakness disguised as morality.

But to those who has it as a choice, they always resort to it. An act of violence remember can also fall into self defense, the protection of your dignity

So, you concede violence for self-defense and dignity. Then it is not merely incompetence, but a *tool* for the strong when their existence or values are threatened. You contradict yourself, moving the goalposts from "incompetence" to "justified necessity" when it suits your weak arguments. It seems morality bends to convenience for you.

Yes it does. Society has changed it to what it is. Masses and thousands would agree to violence being more of a will power but it is always an option but not the first

You cling to the "will to power" in masses, yet your masses are merely the herd, seeking comfort in numbers. True will to power is individual, an overcoming, not a communal embrace of base instincts. "Society has changed it"? Society merely codifies the instincts of the weak, fearful of true strength. Violence as an "option" for the herd is merely reactive, not the creative force of an *Übermensch*.