there is no objective morality

My opponent is obviously unsure of his position. He is making an argument assuming we all think that believing what is true is moral. He has no choice but to do this in his argument. That is what makes his position undefendable. You must first assume that people don't think it is morally acceptable to believe whatever they want and they value things like logic and evidence. I am not saying his argument is truthful, but it is probably what he believes is true. So, just because he doesn't see why the onus is on him, it does not mean it is not. p1: cerebral believes nothing is objectively moral. p2: people should place value on truth is a moral claim c1: cerebral does not believe people are morally obligated to believe the truth. Yet his whole argument comes from making the assumption that we must believe the truth. So, all I was asking was a little clarification as to how he got their, like he asked how I know murder is wrong in the past. He admits he thinks it is, I admit truth value is important, but his point was earlier not everyone has to accept this. Now, he doesn't feel obligated to say why flat out lying and believing in lies is important? Now onto why their is objective morality: Now, as a final part I will show you my syllogism which makes morals objective: But, I need to demonstrate that what we have decided to label morals actual does go back to human well being. Lets take a look at moral "institutions" Judaism has convinced people that the Jewish law is a moral code. The way they have done so, is by convincing people that a "fact on the ground" is that Yahweh will punish them(not beneficial for them) if they do something against the law and reward(beneficial to society) them if they do something against the law. Christianity extended these concepts to the afterlife, and other religions include reincarnation to get there moral principles followed. What these religions have done is changed these "facts on the ground" to change what appears to benefit our well being. The same could even be said of hitler, while the germans were looking for an excuse for the problems after WW!, it was not hard to convince them that the "fact on the ground" was that the Jews were harming their well being as a society. So, now that we see morality has a direct link to human well being, onto the syllogisms: P1:If something increases happiness and life span it is beneficial to human well being. P2:Not murdering people increases human happiness and life span. C1 Not murdering people is beneficial to human well being. P3:Something is morally good if it benefits human well being. c1=P3:not murdering people benefits human well being C2:not murdering people is morally good. The objective standard is human well being and we can measure that. Neuroscience is now studying objective happiness. I will post a link to the google search results so you can take a look at the research. Now, an argument he may try to make would be well prove that life is something we should desire. Well, for anyone that doesn't find life important, I would implore you to go to a store, buy a gun ,stick it in your mouth and shoot yourself. What? You don't want to do that? Well, then guess what you know exactly why life is important. Plus, if he wants to make that argument, he better be able to show why truth is important as it is definitely on the same ground as life. I would implore everyone to vote for me because he has not met his standard of proof, his only objection is that it is not fair, though I am apparently under no objective standard to act fairly.