system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
If morality is subjective, why do we debate/discuss it?

I know it's not the case that morality definitely is subjective. But assuming that it was, what is the function of moral discussions or arguments? How do they work?

How do arguments function when one party can always just say "that's just your opinion" about any proposition?

Further, what does it mean to be subjectively right? Is this something to do with proving that X follows from shared axioms regardless of whether X is objectively or subjectively true?

Last, any reading recommendations on this?
gpt
We talk and argue about lots of things which are subjective all the time, like table manners or whatever, so something being subjective doesn't seem to be a barrier to use arguing/discussing it. 

>Further, what does it mean to be subjectively right? Is this something to do with proving that X follows from shared axioms regardless of whether X is objectively or subjectively true?

Being subjectively wrong/right is pretty empty, but we can think about it in terms of hypotheticals, like 'If consequentialism is true, what sort of things should we do?' or 'If moral naturalism is true, does this point to consequentialism being true?'