Ben Shapiro vs Neil deGrasse Tyson: The WAR Over Transgender Issues

[Sheldon]

That's not how morality is defined:

Morality 
noun
1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Ultimately all moral assertions rest on subjective opinion. 

This is still a subjective assertion, all you have done is use a begging the question fallacy to assume your conclusion in your opening premise, it is both arbitrary and circular. Also moral assertions are relative, what if you punched someone for example, to prevent a greater harm, like murder or rape? 

Note the notion causing harm is immoral is a subjective one, not an objective one.

I think your definition doesn't work either. 

It's the dictionary's definition, not mine. I don't compile those, they reflect current common usage. 

 I didn't see anything circular reasoning in it or any begging but you said principles, which is unclear.

You assumed your conclusion in your opening premise. 

You said good and bad behavior but you did not display the logic behind it.

What logic should I use to figure out if something is right or wrong?

You can avoid violating principles of logic in your reasoning, but moral assertions ultimately rest on subjective claims. 

I can also make up words and give them vague definitions:

Kazouting and "to kazout" = spending the day doing certain things in a full way.

Indeed, but what would you hope to achieve, you did this already with morality, when I claimed that the assertion that causing harm is immoral, is a subjective one, and you responded by saying "not "If you define (redefine in fact) morality as = causing harm is immoral." it fails because it isn't the definition,  which one can find in any dictionary, and that reflects common usage, and because it created the circular reasoning I pointed out. 

It all comes down to "how do you want to define morality?"

Not really, one cannot arbitrarily redefine words, this is just sophistry. I might as easily claim morality means subjective, what would I gain from such a nonsensical claim? 

The rape part, we can judge that it is an immoral act. it is objectively immoral.

I agree it is immoral, but this must ultimately rest on a subjective opinion, not an objective one, but please explain why you think this without ultimately resorting to a subjective opinion. I have tried and cannot, perhaps you can. I must say I am dubious. 

In order to stop it, you want to take an immoral action ==> punch someone.

I disagree, in this instance it is my subjective opinion that punching someone would not be immoral, as it would stop a greater harm, demonstrating that punching someone is not objectively immoral by the way, but relative to a complex set of consequences. 

I don't see what your glass analogy is for, but best decision would depend on your subjective moral worldview, and mine involves not causing unnecessary harm, and where possible preventing it, thus I consider punching someone immoral, but not objectively so, as the example explains. 

Though I think examining the consequences of our actions can help inform our morality, another subjective opinion, moral consequentialism also runs into problems when when we subject it to simple scenarios , like murdering one to save many for example.