Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Nonpareil]

We have been over this. In fact, we reached agreement on this. "Chocolate ice cream is the best" is only subjectively true.

That statement isn't complete enough to be called "true."

Yes. That is the point. It can't be called objectively true because it is a value judgment, and is only "true" inasmuch as you share the same opinion.

Again, we reached agreement on this earlier, and I have no idea why you suddenly take issue with it now.

You can't apply subjective terms to an object without an agent making the subjective evaluation-- that context-definer is often only implied, but it can never be absent.  The complete statement is "Chocolate ice cream is the most delicious TO ME."  From the stater's perspective, this can be called a subjective fact, because it is a statement about his experience as a subjective agent.

If you want to play word games, certainly. But the grammatical definition of "subjective" ("having to do with a subject") is not relevant to the discussion at hand. We are concerned with the definition of "subjective" as opposed to "objective" - opinion versus fact, true assuming a certain perspective versus true from every perspective.

It can ALSO be demonstrated to be an objective truth: you can hook me up to your Brainometer 3000 and see that when I'm given chocolate ice cream, my brain lights up like the 4th of July.  Anybody can come to a consensus on this who can understand how the equipment works, and it is no longer a matter of anyone's opinion.

Yes. Again, it is objectively true that you have opinions. The things posited by those opinions are not objectively true, because they are claims of value. They are subjective.

I'm not arguing for absolute morality, but I am arguing for objective morality.

No. You are attempting to fallaciously equivocate between the concept of objective morality, which has to do with a nebulous and incoherent idea that there is some moral system that is true from every standpoint, and the fact that moral systems can be objectively shown to exist.

The latter is not and has never been in dispute.

Unless we can define terms

We can and have. Repeatedly.

I can say, "Of course morality is objective-- the capacity to act on ideas about right and wrong is ubiquitous to all humans" and be done.

You can say that.

You would be wrong, because that is not what "objective" means, but you can say it all the same.

You can say, "Of course morality is subjective-- the ideas about what constitutes right and wrong vary greatly among individuals, cultures, and across the species."  Then what?

Then the discussion ends, and you stop trying to play games with the definitions of "subjective" and "objective" and hoping no one will notice.