That was an interesting paper.
   *I will summarize the paper, which was interesting:

   It goes through, one by one, the common denials of moral
   realism.

   It does not present an argument *for* moral realism, but rather
   seems to act as a challenge. Put more simply, the paper is
   saying:

   "HERE, MORAL RELATIVISTS: these are your arguments. I shall
   destroy them one by one".

   At the end the author doubts that it's possible to refute moral
   realism at all.

   It's a "God of the gaps" position so to speak; an interesting
   stance as it does not need to define itself precisely, but
   rather it is a stance that says, "Go ahead. Fight my position.
   You can't".

   Definitely an interesting read. Granted, I didn't read it. I
   scanned the bold face and the conclusion and introduction. But
   the main argument was clear.