if I say that Trump is 'good' and you say that Trump is' bad' - we do not contradict each other.

Trump is good,’ means nothing more than, ‘I (the speaker) approve of Trump,’ and that ‘Biden  is bad,’ means nothing more than, “I (the speaker) disapprove of Biden

 Then if I say that Trump is good and you say that Trump is bad we do not contradict each other. (There is, as Russell puts it, ‘no subject of debate’ between us.) 

For it can both be true that I approve of Trump whilst you disapprove. Yet surely we do contradict each other. In which case, ‘Trump is good,’ means something more than ‘I (the speaker) approve of Trump,’ and Bidens bad,’ means something more than, ‘I (the speaker) disapprove of Biden’.  What is this evaluative something, this yard stick, measuring rod?  Here we are led into

the vagaries of theology, a universal good, where we resort to metaphysical abstraction.

Non-natural properties (beyond opinions)  are required to make moral judgements true. In which case, it could still be that moral judgements of good and bad are all false since there are no such defining property.

Moral judgements are designed to state facts. Which facts? Facts about goodness and badness. It is just that there are no such facts and hence moral judgements it could be argued are all false.