There is no compelling reason to believe that objective moral facts exist.

First I did not concede that normative contingency was correct or true or factual in any way I simply stated it was a valid argument with a fallacious premise that being the equation of morality to ethics. And my opponent has not proven that obejective morality does not exist simply he has made 1 argument and the other two are more like indicators to fallacies the first one starting basically saying that peoples morality is dependent upon there life experience the second one simply states that morality is a given and that people assume their is morality amongst us people however that it doesn't prove objective morality and the third ones states that moral values are all subjective and that it's a fallacy to think because a lot of people believe something it's true; however I don't really see why this is relevant we are debating about a objective moral fact like is killing wrong that is why I conceded to this I don't see the need to waste time on an argument that's not relevant to whether killing is wrong moral values =/= moral facts. And for the record arguing that every argument I make is a fallacy does not disprove object moral fact. Simply screaming moral facts don't exist doesnt disprove them nor is it a compelling reason to believe moral facts don't exist. And you cannot argue about the existence of something without talking about it's characteristics or what it entails like we know gravity exists because we stay on the ground. I know that morality exists because actions have consequences. The compelling reason to believe that moral facts exist is because of Causation and Contextually that every action has a consequence If there wasn't such a thing as morality then Rape would be considered having sex with another person the rape victim can tell us how she felt and we directly respond to her with either sympathy and pity to her and anger toward the man who raped her and nothing would be done to him in a society with no moral facts the rapist wouldn't go to jail laws are written upon actions that entail that something bad was done and to establish that actions have consequences. Every action that is made appears in a given context to take away the context means to take away part of reality which is not possible. So let's say the rapist tells his friend he had sex with a women but then his friend finds out that the women he was talking about got raped however he then finds out that the women who got raped is a nymphomaniac. Since I am writing the narrative only I know what happened everybody has to assume what happened like the mans friend hr applies his own standard of morality because he does not now what really happened. Every action that is made or every interaction has an objective reality; however since were human we cannot account for every single action or interaction we apply our own beliefs to the account or we substitute our own beliefs to our actions taking away a part of the reality. So just to recap arguing that all arguments for objective morality are fallacies is not a compelling enough reason to believe that it does not exist. I'm am arguing about the effects of objective morality what morality entails if it exists which it does because some actions have consequences. Thank you for the debate.