[King Prout]

now, are you going to answer the challenge?
be aware, I intend to rebut any answer you give to the challenge, showing how "right" is indeed defined by the might of the one making the definitions.

I should note that I erred - I did not specifiy that "right" in this application specifically excludes mathematically correct solutions to specific problems, mechanically sound design, etc... we are speaking SOLELY of the form/concept of "right" tied to "morality"

[Doctor Stochastic]

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

-Damon Runyon

[betty boop]

now, are you going to answer the challenge? ... be aware, I intend to rebut any answer you give to the challenge, showing how "right" is indeed defined by the might of the one making the definitions.

I accept your challenge, King Prout! And look forward to your rebuttal. Unfortunately, I'm having a busy day today, and will not have the time to write until this evening. Thank you for your patience!

[King Prout]

just to reiterate the terms:
*****
Given:
1. "might" is defined as ability to impose positive and negative consequences, immunity to reprisals, lack of needs requiring exogenous sources of fulfillment, and endurance.
2. "right" in this application specifically excludes mathematically correct solutions to specific problems, mechanically sound design, etc... we are speaking SOLELY of the form/concept of "right" tied to "morality"

Postulate:
"right" is always defined by might, and that definition's range and power is always proportionate to the might of the one making the definition.

Challenge:
Provide one case where the above is clearly not operant.
*****

I will NOT consider answers which deviate from the above terms - changing the subject is no more an answer to a challenge than moving the goalposts is playing football :)