Euthyphro dilemma is still a sound argument against Devine command theory

So can God control his nature or does his nature have control over him? Nature isn't conscious, so it doesn't consciously control him, but God is unable to defy his nature. So God can only do what is within his nature to do. This in no way indicates that goodness is separate from God, because God's nature isn't separate from God, God's nature, is God. So ultimately, God's character as the source of goodness doesn't make him capricious when making decisions as if he bases his laws on nothing at all arbitrarily, but he bases it on his eternal character. Now why should his character be the basis for goodness? Well, there were literally no other options because before God created the universe, nothing else existed, so what other standard of morality could there be except the one that already existed? Pro seems to think that a long as God didn't decide at some point what should be right and wrong, good and bad, that this makes the source independent of God, even trying to make the argument that somehow God's nature or character could independent of him. This is ridiculous. You can't separate a thing from its nature. Pro then says that I begged the question that God even exists, as if this were a debate about the existence of God, when it was he who begged the question by even proposing the question "Is what is morally good"commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" This very question he poses in round 1 assumes the existence of God, and also assumes that some things are morally good. Pro didn't stipulate that this was a debate on whether objective morality even exists, so that things could actually and not just subjectively be morally good; nor did he stipulate that it was about the existence of God. Nor did he stipulate this debate was about whether not just any god, but "my God" exists. And now he expects me to argue for all these points in addition to rebutting the euthyphro dilemma? Such is unreasonable, for each of these are entire debates in themselves, so please keep this in mind when you vote. Now Pro agrees that morality cannot exist outside a conscious mind, and thus concludes our existence is needed for morality as opposed to God's existence. But this position involves the idea that morality, right and wrong, was simply the invention of humans, and therefore is merely a case of one human opinion versus another. If morality is subjective in this way, then there is no truth about anything being right or wrong, there is just human preference. So the man who rapes and tortures a 8 year old girl till she dies doesn't do anything wrong, he merely acts unfashionably. Such actions such as rape and child abuse are just actions that during the course of human development have become taboo, but that does nothing to show such acts are truly wrong. The problem with his hypothesis here is that we do have some moral values that transcend cultures and religions, such as faithfulness to one's partner. Monogamy doesn't exist in the animal kingdom, and there is no evolutionary reason to affirm it. Where would such moral values arise in his world without God? After all, if God doesn't exist, are our morals not the accidental product of the random mutations that lead to the development of our brains? And in that case, why even trust them? Yet, Pro debates the issue as if truth is something to be valued, showing that he does hold to moral values. He might claim that truth isn't truly good, but can't act that way. He can't prove it by action, put his money where his mouth is. If morality is not objective, if truth is indeed good, there must be some higher source other than mere human opinion or else we're back to relativism. Where do you stand, Pro?