I also think it's funny for people to have moral arguments in a forum where you get labeled an idiot if you admit you believe there are such things as morals.

Why shouldn't people argue over morals? The mainstream view here is that each person is arguing about what the fully-informed, fully-reflected-upon output of the other person's moral-evaluating computation would be. The presumption is that all of our respective moral-evaluating computational mechanisms would reach the same conclusion on the issue at hand in the limit of information and reflection.