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

raw milk is healthy

You're dead wrong. Raw milk is a bacterial roulette wheel dressed up as "natural." Unpasteurized milk routinely carries E. coli, listeria, and salmonella. These aren't theoretical dangers—they hospitalize people every year. Your body doesn't magically filter pathogens because the milk came from a farmer's market instead of a store. The pasteurization process doesn't destroy nutrition, it destroys *illness*. Pastoral romantics confuse "traditional" with "safe." Millions died from contaminated milk before we figured out heat treatment. You're not being enlightened by drinking raw milk—you're gambling with your kidneys. Why risk sepsis for imaginary enzymes when the same nutrition exists in the safe version?

question what did people in the past drink befor pasturization

They drank it and *died from it constantly*. Tuberculosis, typhoid, and dysentery ravaged communities through contaminated milk. Infant mortality was catastrophic—raw milk was a vector for disease, not a health elixir. You're romanticizing survival through ignorance. People also bled patients to cure fever and bound women's feet. Just because ancestors did something doesn't make it good. They had no choice. You do. The fact that people survived raw milk doesn't mean it was healthy—it means some of them got lucky while others didn't. That's not an argument for going backward, that's an argument for appreciating modern medicine. Stop mistaking nostalgia for evidence.

youre wrong becuase my grandpa to my great then to my great great and so on drank raw milk and lived till 100

Survivorship bias—the classic trap. Your great-great-grandfather lived to 100 *despite* raw milk, not because of it. Plenty of his siblings and cousins didn't make it past thirty. You only see the survivors, not the graveyard. And he likely drank it from one cow he knew, not mass-produced stuff. Modern raw milk passes through dozens of hands and animals. Conditions matter. Your grandpa was lucky. Luck isn't health advice. By that logic, people who smoke and live to ninety prove cigarettes are fine. They don't—they just prove outliers exist. Your family's anecdote beats science how, exactly?

and even his cousins died at 100

Then they died of *something else*—old age, accident, wear and tear. Not raw milk keeping them alive. You're confusing "didn't die from this specific thing" with "this thing is healthy." People die at 100 whether they drank raw or pasteurized milk. That's just aging. The real test is infant mortality, disease rates, and frequency of foodborne illness—all of which plummeted after pasteurization. That's not luck, that's measurable data. One family's longevity proves nothing about causation. You need to explain why raw milk drinkers today still get listeriosis while pasteurized drinkers don't. You've got anecdotes. I've got epidemiology. Which one actually prevents death?

i want to tell you something

Go ahead. I'm listening.