Morality is not objective nor decided by any god but rather a freedom of people

After finding myself to read a couple more debates I noticed that there are some conventions here and there about how we can start a debate. I'm glad to find my opponent to follow my lead and post his argument. We do agree on the definitions of objective and subjective moral values. I, however, think that my opponent makes a view assumptions that lead to a huge difference in opinion even though I might feel that we can come to an agreement very soon. I'd like to quote the following line: Every human society operates based on the existence of objective right and wrong. The alternative to this, and the physical manifestation of true moral subjectivity (where everyone accepts everyone else"s opinion of human behavior), is anarchy I think my opponent has the burden of proof when he implies that simply because our society operates on the same moral values, this implies that they are 'objectively good'. I here fall back on my analogy with pain. Pain occurs obviously when the skin is damage to a certain depth where the pain receptors are. In fact, it seems that all pain occurs usually when there is damage to the body. We also seem to all dislike pain instead of liking it. Does this mean that damage is ought to be sensed as a negative sensation? Does it have to be that way? Only if we make the assumption that we have to avoid pain. Once we make that step, I do agree with my opponent. But there is objectively no reason to say that we ought to survive as a species. We could just as well want to exterminate ourselves. Who is to say that that is morally bad? We might happen to all agree that we wouldn't want that, but does that make it objectively bad? No that makes is subjectively bad. Now my opponent implied that if a subjective morality is true, we have to value each others moral judgements equally. That doesn't mean that we therefore can not interfere in each others lives. I would argue that in a world of subjective moral values you could have a situation where 100 people are against murder and 1 is pro murder and the 100 would agree to incarcerate or maybe even murder the 1 person who forms a danger to their survival. This creates a form of natural selection where only a selective group of moral values survive. I think that any argument pro objective moral values should imply equally to our limbs. We could say: a human beings have to have limbs in order to survive as a species. But could you objectively prove that we ought to survive. I think this matter stays in the way of objective moral values. And I argue that no, we don't need to be able to have objective moral reasons that we should survive, for us to all agree that we want it. We similarly don't need to have objective reasons to prove why 'shawshenk redemption' is the best movie(according to IMDB) in order to all agree that we think it is. That's a matter of vote. Just like our moral values. We also can't say that Shawshenk Redemption objectively is the best movie because it depends entirely on what someone values. I would like to close by making the following two statements that I think are mainly different: 1. I agree with most of what my opponent says when we assume that we ought to survive. 2. I don't agree that subjective moral values necessarily lead to anarchy because a species can collectively decide to form a justice system to protect their kind of extinction without requiring objective moral arguments as permission.