Euthyphro dilemma is still a sound argument against Devine command theory

My opponent states his argument, If we exam his first paragraph he makes the statement "Nature isn't conscious, so it doesn't consciously control him..." while this immediately seems true an examination at the principle of my argument makes the conclusion that if God cannot control his nature then it is what his nature that dictates the material or essence of everything God is and about thereby it does indeed "control" him. If you are wondering how this is accomplished still think of it like this. If I cannot control my emotional pain (sorrow loneliness etc..), which is apart of my nature to feel under circumstances, then I indeed yield to these emotions. This also is the case with my opponents God, unable to control his natural aspects and thus forced to yield to them for what they are. I did not make the argument that it is a couscous control as that of something behind them. My opponent also on close examination of the immediate sentence after admits the second horn of our newly stated dilemma to be true "So God can only do what is within his nature to do." My opponent thus accepts the fact God cannot control his nature and will prove to be a prevailing flaw in his divine command theory. My opponent continues, "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." My opponent makes the claim that goodness is not separate from Gods nature because it is attached to his nature and God is what he is "I am.-God" I do not argue the fact Gods nature is independent of him or that goodness is not attached to his nature, but the fact if God cannot control his nature he thus is not the standard, His natures basis is. ***(please note it is the standard not the nature itself. Therefore any attempt to say "well God is his nature thus Goodness is God would be false. Again this is because it is the logical definitions/ideas that compose his nature which would be the source. Since these ideas are attributes to the framework of the framework of God they are indeed entirely independent of God. Although they may be nature of nature they do not make the nature of God ultimately since the idea and definition of what something is, is something that exists completely independent of all things and are used to give a word meaning. (such can be defined as a logical truth) A perfect form of which we base language off of as you will.)*** One reading this debate would at this point be able to see my argument unfolding. If we take what my opponent has stated as fact in this debate 1. "So God can only do what is within his nature to do." (i.e. He cannot change it he is after all unchanging. I'm sure my opponent will not argue this fact unless he is willing to admit the first horn of the dilemma correct and morality is thus subjective because God can choose is nature and by defacto chose morality as he wishes (subjective choice of preference at least on the subconscious level.) 2. "God's character is the standard." (As we have concluded it is the logical idea/definition of Gods nature, which we have also concluded that is independent of God, Is thus the true standard of morality and morality is not based on the nature of God but what that nature means to be.) One can then by these two premises accurately conclude that God is thus not required for moral good. Only an understanding of what constitutes his nature is needed (since it's defined by the ultimate authority). Later in the debate I discuss how we have accomplished an understanding of his nature. One may be thinking as my opponent has quoted, well wait "These things cannot exist without God." (a rough quotation taken from context) To that we say is only a seemingly logical conclusion not one actually true at all. For that is to argue without God nothing is true at all. That would be a presuppositional argument. An argument that states without God to deliver information we would not have the logical foundation to draw a conclusion from. This is where my opponents underlying theme of "begging the question" really comes into play. For my opponent cannot use this as a logical defense because he cannot prove what he predetermines to be true, something his defense crucially needs to be true in order to be a defense at all. My opponent assumes God is true because God tells him of his nature and that being he is eternal(through scripture). The problem for my opponent is that he is unable to 1. Prove God exists in the first place. 2. Prove that it is actually God who gives him this information and not the trickster god we alluded to earlier. This renders his presuppositional standpoint incomplete and a complete flop and fails to defend his standpoint (that alone should win me the victory in the argument, but I will touch base with the other points he has made.) My opponent argues that because his God is real there is no other logical conclusion to derive morality but that from his God. However I have demonstrated that indeed God cannot be the ultimate source of Good for it is his natures standard. Yet we are left with morality however, and my opponent again has graciously answered why that is for us in his first rebuttal "morality doesn't exist outside intelligent minds, which means there would have to be some conscious being in existence for morality to exist." and since we have determined ultimately it cannot be from God. It must come from the only other being with a analytical mind, a thought process to differ right from wrong... Us! human beings! The rest of why that is, is simply evolution which there certainly is no room to put all in this debate (ill leave that part up to the reader.) My opponent continues to expand on his ideas though stating "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." This is not true. For anyone who picks up reading material on moral subjectivism will find that morality if defined subjectively (which it is considering no God linked moral law.) will learn that what is Good is indeed Good to he who defines Good as such. The part of raping the young girl a mere flash and awe tactic to scare us away from such thinking. To this I say shame to you my opponent. But it is proven (even if a God exists and is the divine moral law giver) That the man sadistic enough to lose all empathy (the characteristic separating us from barbarians, google it sometime.) is going to see his act of raping the girl good regardless. However because of moral subjectivity this does not make it "unfashionable" as my opponent claims. For just as this can be seen as entirely good to the individual who sees it, it is true it can be seen as entirely morally wrong to someone who doesn't and appeals to empathy. In this case we have completely shown the lack of a need for a absolute moral truth, for we who know what is indeed good when appealing to empathy will act on such good traits and not be subject to "oh well nobody says its wrong lets have fun" as my opponent believes. This entire explanation thus renders my opponents question "Where would such moral values arise in his world without God?" a redundant question, one quite ridiculous to ask really. Last but not least! In my opponents third paragraph he claims I am infact the one who begs the argument "God exists" This is simply not true in that my intentions to ask the question are to show that even f God exists he cannot be the source of moral truth. This is also applicable with any omnipotent being, that is creator of all things. including the Christian God thus why he is subject to Euthyphro.