Objective moral facts do not exist

I would first like to point out that my opponent has not only not responded to my argument from contingent existence, therefore I will merely extend it. Since it is merely a conditional fact that humans exist in the first place, any moral "truths" will be completely dependent on this. Meaning, they will be dependent on human perception or experience to make any sense at all. I will spend my time here refuting my opponent's positive case for an objective morality.Contention I. Moral choice.This is where my opponent's case lacks warrant. Nowhere does my opponent actually justify the point of his that there exists a moral choice since he hasn't actually justified his position that the values which we rely on to make our choices are actually objective and not simply subjective inclinations. I admit that choices regarding actions exist (for the sake of the debate I think free will is a matter better left out), I just don't admit that they have any objective moral meaning and my opponent has not sufficiently provided a case upholding that proposition.Contention II. Contextual action.Based on my understanding of my opponent's point, he is arguing that every action we take occurs in a context. That it is based on other factors related to our own values of how to act. I would agree with this statement but don't think it helps my opponent's case since (A) this undermines the objectivity factor i.e. it doesn't address my point that existence is inherently conditional and (B) my opponent really needs to defend his conception of values as being objectively moral in the first place before this point could actually help his point. If our values placed on things like nutrition or health or general well being are not objectively founded, then how does it follow that our moral rules based on those values are objective truths?Contention III. Value Hierarchy.I also admit that people generally build up their values into hierarchies. However, this doesn't mean what my opponent seems to think it means. The fact that values are ordered in a hierarchy does not mean that those values themselves have any objectivity (I don't mean the value of nutrition doesn't objectively refer to nutrition, I mean the value of nutrition is not objective vis a vis being a value). Values are ordered ordinally. This means that things are valued in relation to others. If I have an option A and B, I might value A over B. But this doesn't mean they have objective value, it means I subjectively value things as better or worse in relation to other relevant options. The supposed objectivity of our values upheld by Con is unwarranted and unsupported.ConclusionMy opponent has generated an interesting case in defense of objective moral facts. He argues that within context, we have options on how to act and thus may incorporate those options objectively into our cardinal hierarchy of values. However, my opponent has failed to justify the position that our values are cardinally objective as opposed to ordinally subjective. Therefore his entire case lacks the necessary foundation on which to base objectivity. If the values on which moral calculation is based are not objective, then the conclusions based off of those calculations are themselves merely descriptions of subjective conditions and thus not objective moral facts at all.