Molesting children is wrong.

Well he has already conceded, so not much to argue. I was hoping to actually get a good debate on philosophy. I take these debates few and far between and I just have to be in the mood for it. As he already stated, he can not meet his BOP on this so the debate is already over from this point. I will still offer up my contentions, because it is a rare occasion when I take a debate like this. It seems my adversary is not very fluent with philosophy or has ever endeavored to even take on looking deeper into this, because it is quite possible to meet the BOP on this topic. It is all with how you approach the issue. Since he has chosen not to do so, and as I have already stated this debate is probably over before it starts. Topic we are discussing"Molesting children is wrong"For this statement to actually be correct, he has to show that this is wrong objectively. It could have been worded better if he would have said " molesting children is considered wrong in america" or "is considered wrong by most", but that is not the case, he is claiming that it is objectively wrong.I was going to build a huge case on subjective morality vs objective morality and comparing it to what moral relativism entails. It is all ontology vs epistemology with most of this debate, but seeing as how he already claimed he can not meet his BOP, there is no point to go into the detail I had originally planned. I will offer up one major contentions for this debate.Contention 1How do we gauge morality. To claim that something is objectively wrong, you would have to find a standard in which to gauge it. Christians use this as God and even some atheists will use the well being of other humans or happiness as a way to gauge it. This is a quote from Paul Kurtz and I think it sums up the majority of my view point on this issue. " The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, they are purely ephemeral."Sub point AWhat is wrong in (Society A) may not be wrong in (Society B).Where as most people think molesting children is wrong in America, it may not be so in other cultures. Example A: In america molesting children is wrongExample B: In some tribes in Africa it could be considered perfectly acceptable to marry a child at the age of 10 or 12 and have sex with them.In both of these societies this is their objective standard. There is a huge difference between saying there "is" objective morality or there "can be" objective morality. There can be objective morality within both societies on different issues, but to say there is objective morality within the universe itself, you would have to show what your gauge for that is. He has failed to present one. When we compare Society A to Society B, we as people of modern culture would think Society B are wrong. This is because we are using our sense of objectivity morality as a gauge. What we know to be objectively right or wrong, we are using that as a way to say they are objectively right or wrong. This is not the case in all circumstances. This is where you would have to weigh in ontology vs epistemology. This point I have made can be contested, but it can hold true as well. It just depends on how you perceive the definition of "objective". http://plato.stanford.edu...In ClosingI wish my adversary would have taken the time to actually look into this topic rather than saying he would lose from the start. It is not to often I actually find the want or need to debate these types of issues, and the one time I have chosen to do so lately it has been a let down. As he has already claimed"He can not meet his BOP" but what he actually means to say is "he does not know how"Since he has claimed he can not meet his BOP and I have already addressed how this issue can be subjective, I think the most logical conclusion is to vote Con. Thank you.