Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hmm.  To put it in a similar manner I would say it is as follows first I argued:
1.  A person acts according to ethical utility, an argument to numbers, which leads to immoral actions.
2.  A person makes an appeal to authority in order to override the appeal to numbers to engage in immoral actions.
3.  The authority appealed to will not be supported by direct explicit empirical proof and thus may be considered fictional.
4.  Thus, one must appeal to a fictional entity (their person, conscience, schema, or deity) in order to have an authority to override utility.

Not so much an argument as it is a long winded claim, though, eh?  You're going to have trouble demonstrating the truth value of -anything- you've said there.  But GL to you with that, truly.

Then I argued:
1.  An appeal to authority, where the authority is subjective results in a morality based on whims.

so what?

2.  An appeal to authority, where the authority is objective (in actuality or proxy) results in morality that overrides whims.

So what?

3.  A person engages in the act believed to be subjectively best/correct/right.

That actually sends pretty legit...but so what?

4.  Under subjective determination all acts are right; under objective determination all acts are not right.

Aw, too bad, that's not argued, it's misapprehended.  Under subjective determinations all acts are...wait for it....morally subjective.  Not right.  You've already been corrected.....but....so...what?