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

I had this whole new argument based upon the response of my opponent but I guess this argument isn't really useful since only his last argument is the argument that really matters to me. I quote: "Moral subjectivity is more than just having your own moral opinions. True subjectivity must also acknowledge that everyone else's opinions are equally acceptable. In application, this means raping and murdering are fully acceptable behaviors. Pro must explain how this makes sense in order to support their position. This is not a reality we observe anywhere." I think the whole definition is paradoxical. The part where he says: True subjectivity must also acknowledge that everyone else's opinions are equally acceptable. This is obviously not true since that is a moral objective claim that cannot be true if moral subjectivity is true, which is a requisite to make that claim in the first place. Its like saying: A is the opposite of B and it implies C, which means that because of B, D is true. In a subjective moral system, everybody is free to do whatever they want with whoever they want and vice verse. Why, if morality is subjective, would that mean that people cannot enforce their moral standpoints on others? Look at a more primitive form of life in our bloodstreams where white blood cells are fighting off viruses. Or perhaps the tidal movement of oceans on rocks. Its just a battle of two great forces pushing the other out of existence. Its like erosion, the stronger one perseveres. Just like good genes. Take the ocean, the ocean exists has the right to exist so does a rock, but just because they have an equal right to exist, the ocean cannot erode a rock? That is what my opponent uses as a counter argument. A and B are equally valid so that means that they cannot interfere? How does that make sense? The whole debate has been put in a misshaped mold. First I claimed that morality is a subjective result from evolution just like our common sensation of pain. Somehow my opponent assumes that "In application, this means raping and murdering are fully acceptable behaviors.". Which is simply not equal to my viewpoint. The term 'Are fully acceptable behaviours' is a moral objective argument that obviously doesn't apply on my argument. Let me clarify the nuance in this specific case. I argue that some people might have the opinion that murder and rape is acceptable behaviour. If 5 people have that opinion and 10.000.000 people find that reprehensible. From an objective standpoint, you can not say which one is better since I argue that it isn't an objective thing. Why does that mean that they cannot force these 5 people to abstain from raping and murdering? My opponent is taking a part of my argument, adding the label of 'his definition of moral subjectivity' to it and then based on this new label adds conclusions that are obviously not implied by my vision on morality. How do I then prove that morality is based on evolution? Because that model is able to provide incredibly good explanations as to why certain moral values exist. One way to disprove this model that I am offering is to give me a personal moral value that isn't explainable by evolution. Another would be give a better explanation or proof for a something that is mutually exclusive with my model. To end my argument: We see different moral values all over the planet. Somehow Jews believe it is okay to cut off the foreskin of newborn babies. A couple of people of Islamic believes think it is okay to kill hundreds of people who have a different religious believe and that such an action will take them to heaven. To me a more top level observation that shows that morality is different everywhere. But somehow, all of us seem to have this instinct where we want to be free and not hurt by others which, to me seems like a clear leftover from a very basic evolutionary principle: we all want to survive(almost all of us).