That's the miracle with you, dear rekrunner. I did show you objective facts, evidences and observations but you miraculously denied all of them or turn a blind eye to them. Maybe it's you, not me???
If are baffled but you are the baffling one not me.
And, some types of reasoning and thinking does not need objective facts, evidences and observations to conclude and deduce/induce, they only need precisely deducing/inducing will do!!!
When I want to influence you to think that 'objectivity' is a form of subjectivity hence a form of morality I don't need to show you objective facts, evidences or observations that objectivity is subjectivity, I only need to deduce/induce my way to it!!!!
Philosophy/morality/spirituality or metaphysicality doesn't need objective facts, evidences and observations to arrive at, it only needs deduction/induction skill!!!
Objective facts, evidences, observations don't need so much as any skill at all, it's just lift and paste, and lift and paste, but deduction/induction requires great skill!!!!
You want to limit the rules of debate to only objective facts, evidences and observations but I'm trying to push the limits of debate to where my skills and skillsets are freely and liberally on display.