It's a difficult question, but I think I have defined morality in a way where it is not subjective but objective.

Basically, you can measure morality by the net loss or gain of lives. By killing a serial murderer, you can safely assume you have saved the lives of his future victims, whoever they may be.

But if you kill a charity founder or a fireman, it's safe to assume that, by killing them, you have indirectly caused the deaths of whoever they would've saved in the future.

This gets very complicated and nearly impossible to actually put into practice without the ability to see into the future, but I think it's a fair definition of "Good" and "Evil"

Good and bad exist... I don't know about good forces and evil forces. People say that they don't just because they don't think they can argue their morals, but I think you can.

There is an existence of good. And absence of good is evil. The Bible says that God is good. Since, there is existence of God, there is also existence of good.

As a believer of objective principles, I do believe that objective good and bad exists.

Relativism, in my opinion, is a myth and nobody, not even relativists themselves, are consistent with it.

In my opinion they exist. Do not question me about this. Good people are all out there. Bad people are out there too. I mean not bad people but evil people who treat other people badly perhaps

Sure. Doing 'good' is doing what you feel is morally or ethically right. Doing 'evil' is the opposite. Sure, 'good' and 'evil' are pretty much labels, because the concepts could easily be known as 'hugra' and 'lavi' (made those up..). But the idea is the same.

As long as we discuss this argument, good and evil must exist.

Do you ever see a debate in existence of flying spaghetti?

I don't think so!

Do you ever see a debate about true or false in harry poter's story?