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

sorry about not getting to your arguments. Normative contingency: My opponent has agreed that ethics and morality are different. However in his argument of normative contingency he equated them and made assertion that it's "a fact which most everyone acknowledges; however, if we consistently apply this concept, we also see that moral values are themselves contingent, usually on one's psychological states, personal interest, etc," and so they are not objectively morally binding. This is a valid argument however it suffers from a premise that he has concede is fallacious. People will do what they think is right, because of there personal interests and psychological states. When Hitler was killing jews the jews probably thought that he was immoral and the jews that might have killed a nazi other nazi's thought that jew was immoral. the underlying thought is killing is wrong, because of their beliefs and values they have the problem of 'content' that who they kill is relavent so a nazi beleives that killing a jew is not immoral but the right thing to do; It isn't his fault his psychological state and personal interests have given him the problem of 'content' or thinking that what he does is relavent and that what he does will help his leaders views which are his views getting rid of the jews is important so we need to kill jews the nazi is killing jews and believes that killing is immoral the nazi isn't a hypocrite he simply sufferes from the problem of 'content'. presupposition problem: So this isn't actually an argument simply something to point out a fallaicious argument like a false premise which doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong simply the premise. men are immortal sorcates is a man therefore sorcrates is mortal the conclusion is correct but not the premise. Subjective value problem: Your point seems to be that values are subjective I concede to this they are but I don't see how they are relavent in this debate. In fact I believe that many people will do what they think is right because of the values that they have the nazi holds different values than the jew and vice versa their values help them decide what they THINk is right and will act each will act accordinly. This simply supports my assertion that they both sufer from the problem of 'content'. The nazi does not believe he is wrong in killing the jew because of his value, personal intersts, and psychological state, but consequently he believs that the jew is wrong when he kills a nazi but the jew does not believe he is because of 'content' (the external influence is also a contributing factor). my contentions 1,2,3 were refuted with cody's contentions they all suffered from a problem now that I have disproved them they hold. (and yeah I drop 2 it was appeal to consequence :p even thought it's true) -content - the problem I addressed earlier with cody's first argument basically I asserting that killing is wrong but because of what people believe and how they have been raised and what they have seen or heard might take them to believe that killing/murder is somehow justified which I believe it never is. Because of their psychological state some psychopaths might believe that killing is okay, because of personal interest a man might kill his wife who has cheated on him and who she was cheating with. Because of external influence some people might believe that it is right to do something like hijacking a plane and crashing it into towers. That doesn't mean that the same people that killed someone don't believe that killing isn't wrong I'm sure they do but because of their situation or their beliefs they did what they thougt was right.