We were talking about worth and value, not right or wrong. Worth and value are purely subjective. The two groupings are not synonymous. Logically, you can be wrong because you haven't made a valid argument for your position. For example, you have yet to show me how value and worth may be quantified. Other properties of an object can be so quantified, therefore it must be possible to do so for value and worth if those are valid properties of an object. I have shown you, however, that value can be entirely subjective and such subjectivity actually forms the basis for economic systems.
In other words, I have given evidence for my position. You have simply naysayed my position, which is not evidence for your position. We find this situation in the over-arching crevo arguments; the evos give evidence to support their positions and the creos attack that evidence without ever supplying evidence for their particular positions.
It makes no difference. Let me say it again. I am now applying the statement to the specific topic of human value. You said human value is subjective to each person. Now, I say: If one's view of human value is subjective, then I must be right, and you must be right. No one can be wrong in subjectivism. Don't you see that? Therefore, when I argue that human value is objective, I CAN'T BE WRONG, because in your world, whatever view I hold is right under the rules of subjectivism. You can only admit that I can't be wrong, EVEN if I hold that human value is objective, because I hold that view subjectively from your perspective.
Besides, you can't pick and choose which moral precepts are subjective - either they all are or they all aren't. You would then be inconsistent as well as illogical.