There's a very simple argument refuting the existence of universally compelling arguments, and I believe it was stated elsewhere in this thread. It's that argument you have to refute, not this one.
Please point this out to me if you get a chance, as I haven't noticed it. And thanks for the discussion. I mean that: I can see that this wasn't helpful or interesting for you, but rest assured it was for me, so your indulgence is appreciated.
You're welcome! The refutation of universally compelling arguments I was referring to is this one. I see you responded that you're interested in a different definition of "compelling". On the word "compelling", you say
On the one hand, we could mean 'persuasive' where this means something like 'If I sat down with someone, and presented the moral argument to them, they would end up accepting it regardless of their starting view'. This seems to be a bad option, because the claim that 'there are no universally persuasive moral arguments'
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.