Euthyphro Dilemma: Morality is arbritary

I'm just going to quote my opponent in a few places and show why I have won. I will not post any new arguments because my opponent will not have a chance to respond to them "...tells us that society has compromised their morality, it has changed, and it has evolved..." "Morality has changed, due to societies own arbitrary moral standard." "...can choose to believe legalizing drug as a morally good action. I can justify my action by saying... Others can disagree... but their moral view is every bit as arbitrary as mine. Who decided it was morally good or morally bad? It was me, myself, and I." Going back to the attributes my opponent conceded to, "1) God (the morality-giver)..." Clearly, all of that analysis is invalid because if pro's position is that SOCIETY or HE has compromised morality, then it is not the new standard for morality because only the morality-giver can change that. I point out that yes, pro did say "He [God] decided these things based on his OWN logic, not the logic of everything and everyone in sync." But, here is where the debate is to be decided. He did not refute my claims that His logic was not at all arbitrary, but rather based on a system such that "anything that is immoral by any standard has a logical reason for it, and... they have a commonality- they cause some sort of harm, spiritual, physical or otherwise, to a being or multiple beings." (posted in my round 2 argument) Thus the reason why debating semantics is truly important in this debate, and I thank my opponent for not dropping the semantics argument. "God is not bound by the principles of logic," I agree, God is not bound by the principles of logic, which is always my response to the paradox of the stone. But in this case, I am NOT providing God with boundaries, but rather explaining the rationality of a divine decree THROUGH logic. If God is not bound by logic, doesn't mean some actions (or even all) can be explained through it. There is no contradiction. "and the principles of logic are arbitrary themselves, as what X finds logical, Y can disagree and find it illogical." Logic is definitive. Hence the definition "according to or agreeing with the principles of logic"; the principles of logic do not change. And I'm sure my opponent would not refute that claim. Now, I will take a moment to give my opponent a virtual pat on the back. "It fits with the 3 dictionary definition of arbitrary. God's Moral Law is arbitrary to his will, his own logic, and his own reasoning" It will be hard to refute this, but I will do my best to keep it short and simple. Now, don't get me wrong. I understand this position. But, the resolution does not state "Morality is arbitrary to God's will, logic, and/or reasoning". In that case, I would have not accepted this debate as con. In this specific wording, I am con because I am trying to prove that morality has a very distinct reason that is not arbitrary by chance, and that is not whimsical; for example it is not immoral (at least in Islam, the viewpoint I'm debating from) to not quit work and spend 24 hours a day worshiping Allah. Rather, this is discouraged, because the acquisition of knowledge and wealth is an integral part of Islam, and it is important to be able to provide for the family with which you are living, your services and kindness. So, at the end of the day, the voters have to decide which definition or arbitrary is most applicable to the debate. My opponent advocates "1,2,3,7,8,9. opposed to 4,5, and 6." - of the ones he provided. He intelligently left out 6 because it says "not by necessity, reason, or principle" But notice that the definitions he does support include "one's discretion"; "arbiter"; "tyrannical"; "individual judgement"; "rather than by a specific law"; and "not limited by law". All of these imply irrational, whimsical, or unreasonable, tell me if I am mistaken. Thus, I contend that the contradiction still stands in pro's position, and I extend the argument made at the bottom of round 2 (all immoral deeds have something in common, thus they cannot be arbitrary, but rather decided by solid reasoning and logic). Finally, I urge voters to consider ALL the definitions provided, and see which definitions will make the most sense in context according to their own REASONING, as opposed to by their own arbitrary standards (:P) I enjoyed this debate more than any other, and I thank my opponent for the insight on the topic. I had never heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma, but they say there's always room to learn. Once again, thank you. And I hope the voters enjoyed this debate as much as we did.