i didnt appealing to authority

i posted video where he makes the argument

then i added a WWE style introduction

It's a straw man argument. It incorrectly defines moral relativism in order to attack it

no it doesnt

it accurately portrays it

I mean no it doesn't but that's fine.

Relativism isn't that "there are no objective truths and nothing it knowable" which is the definition that argument relies on to make it self referential and thus self defeating

no

it made a moral claim

Only that there are no moral truths, fundamental to the universe. It itself isn't a moral truth proposition. Relativism isn't a moral proposition itself

while saying no moral claims

It did not

checkmate

yes it is

That's both not what it says and not a moral claim

you claim morality exists,

yet it is relative

i asked you specifically if it didnt exist

based on how you worded it earlier, you believe moral truth exists, but only relative to every individual

Yes. That's not a moral claim

That's not saying something is good or bad

thats why after i made my argument i said "now you must choose between moral nihilism and moral objectivism"

it is a moral claim

It is not

by saying morality is on an individual basis,

you claim some things are bad (morally) to an individual

It is a claim about morality

if you misspoke and meant morality doesnt exist, say so

Of course morality exists dumbass

it absolutely is a moral claim to say morality exists on an individual basis

You don't know what a moral claim is

That's the takeaway

by making that claim, you are making a moral judgement on every action

And because of that, you cannot see the flaw

no, you just want to cling to a position i disproved

I asked you many times based on your moral subjectivism

about specific moral scenarios

Ok, so let's assume you disproved subjectivism

and you used your moral claim to consistently claim the same thing

That means objectivism is right