Morality is Objective

So my opponent instead of engagingly case rationally has resorted to strings of insults. It's really rude and hurtful, and I would ask the judges to consider his impolite behavior as they're voting. Moving on from that, my opponent accuses me of thinking in black and white, and I make the assumption that everyone's perception can't be wrong. I'll tackle both, then move onto his argument about subatomic particles, then rehash why I'm winning this debate. Black and White ThoughtI really don't understand this objection at all. My opponent never really says how I'm thinking in black and white, rather just asserts I am, which doesn't really make sense. Moreover, if anything it would be objective thought that would be thinking in black and white, since they view morality as having one objective truth, and everything else being not true, which is virtually the definition of black and white thinking. Subjective thought, on the other hand, would assert that morality isn't based on the black and white thinking, but rather there are multiple different perceptions possible on every situation, meaning there's more than just a duality of choices. Both can be wrong?The strange thing is my opponent is right and wrong at the same time. I never make the assumption that both can be wrong in my apple example, as it's perfectly the apple can be green and both of their perceptions are flawed, but they're also not wrong at the same time. We simply evaluate issues and circumstances with the information we have available to us at the time, and make a judgment of right and wrong at that moment. That doesn't mean there isn't new imformation out there that we can come across, forcing us to reexamine our perception of the issue and formulate new beliefs. Let's go back to the apple example. Suppose I'm colorblind and looking at the red apple. My perception of the apple, although medically flawed, provides me with the information that the apple lacks color, or is a colorless color whichever you prefer. But if one day I were to receive an operation that restored color to my sight and looked at that apple again (it would probably be moldy at this point but let's ignore that for the sake of discussion), I would be perceiving new information, I.e the apple has color now and it's the color red. At that point I would be forced to reconsider my stance on the issue of the color of the apple and formulate a new belief. Morality works the same way. We receive new information all the time, whether it be from science or medicine or philosophers or whatever, about what is correct and what is not correct. If we didn't African Americans would still be plowing fields and would be being mistreated constantly. But since we now know that they aren't actually subhuman, and are worthy of moral consideration, we no longer enslave them. This change over time necessitates moral subjectivity's existence. Subatomic what-now? My opponent makes an argument in his opening round saying that morality is based off of some kind of subatomic particle, and that these particles are necessarily objective. The problem is that's -literally- all he says. He doesn't bother to explain his views or defend them in any way. He doesn't even bring them up in his next round. Don't allow him to in this final round as I don't have another chance to examine them critically and refute them since this is the last chance i get to speak this debate. Conclusion My opponent hasn't attacked any of my points beyond calling me stupid for having them. He provided no justification for his argument, and hasn't addressed the reasoning behind mine. I'm responding to the few objections he did raise. So vote con! Thanks to pro for a good debate!