Morality is subjective

I am arguing in LD format that morality IS subjective. My opponent has asked for no evidence and therefore I shall provide none beyond a definition. My opponent also requested a 100 character grace period after each 'speech'. I do not know if this means that there is a 100 character leeway in my speech (ie 6,100 characters) or that I need 100 blank characters after my speech (resulting in 5,900 usable characters). While the first certainly seems more logical, I don't want to assume and will therefore keep my speeches to the character limit set by my opponent in his clarifications minus one-hundred. And now, without further ado, I'll present my arguments. OPENING ARGUMENTS Value: Truth We often value many different things at many different points in our lives, but if there is one thing that is absolutely integral in human affairs it is truth. All human beings make their decisions and actions based upon what they believe is the truth. Also, all fields of human study are concerned with the hunt for the truth. Clearly truth is the most important value that can be tied to today's debate because truth is something of which we base all of our philosophies. Criterion: Understanding the Nature of Morality This criterion directly links to truth because in order to reach the most truth, we most have the most accurate understanding of the nature of morality. Clearly, it is necessary to understand the nature of morality in order to understand what the truth is regarding it. Clarification: Please note that this is a value/criterion that both my opponent and I can uphold that lets us better get in to the real meat of this debate - the arguments regarding whether or not morality is subjective. I ask that my opponent also accept this value/criterion set as his own to avoid a debate centralized on value/criterion and more so focused on the issue of morality. Contention 1: There is no master moral standard. My opponent vies that morality is not subjective. This means that he is advocating a position of objective morality, seeing as the words are opposites. Objective morality ordains that there are certain actions that are OBJECTIVELY wrong in all situations. This means that, no matter what, that certain actions are wrong (ie "murder is always wrong" or "murder of innocent children is always wrong" or even "murder of innocent children that will do more harm to society than good is always wrong") no matter what. Morality deals in standards like those. Standards, however, are created by humans, and it certainly can't be said that there are any objective standards. There is no reason to believe whatsoever that there is some master standard. There are many works such as the Bible which contain standards that are objective in nature, however there is no reason to assume that there standards are actually standards that are objective instead of human opinion on what should be objective. Contention 2: No standards can be justified Morality, as previously stated, creates standards off of which to base the "justness" of one's actions. However, what justifies a standard? If the only thing that can justify something else is a standard, then standards themselves can only be justifies by other standards. This leads to a trail of standards which continue back infinitely, never allowing us to reach a "master standard" (because that would need to be justified by another standard. ) To say that something is objectively wrong means saying that the moral standards involved are objectively right and just. As I've shown, however, standards cannot be truly justified and therefore never shown to be objective. Conclusion: I have not presented large arguments, but I do feel, however, that they are well enough explained to relay my points. My main point is that there is not objective source of objective standards. My opponent, in order to satisfy his burden of proof (this is LD, so it's on both sides), must show that there is an objective standard and be able to show how that standard is ultimately just. I am about 1,700 characters behind my character limit, which should appease my opponent, and I hope for a great debate focused on this most important issue of the nature of morality.