Here's your debate.

The article is by a philosopher. His objection is against the current educational makeup in public schools. His assertion is that a lack of education in moral truths leads to moral relativism.

Okay, fine. So prove there's something wrong with moral relativism.

Here's the problem:

Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”

Him: “It’s a fact.”

Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”

Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”

Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”

The blank stare on his face said it all.

The New York Times just gave space for an associate professor at a community college to crow about trapping a 2nd grade teacher in a tautology.

The author expends no effort to explore the difference between a "fact" and a "truth"; the closest he gets is

In summary, our public schools teach students that all claims are either facts or opinions and that all value and moral claims fall into the latter camp. The punchline: there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths.

I'm not sure why he's surprised that public schools do not teach "truths" - consider what a catastrophic mess biology can be simply because some people cling to the "moral truth" that evolution is not a stochastic process. Try teaching the Civil War from a "moral truth" standpoint: Slavery is bad so the North was right and the South was wrong. But exploitation and excess reparations are bad so the South was right and the North was wrong. But Jim Crow laws are bad so the South was wrong. But Jackie Robinson. But miscegenation. But George Wallace. But Martin Luther King.

Go moral relativism.

Try to take on current events:

There, consistency demands that we acknowledge the existence of moral facts. If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged?

If that truth is not relative then how are we to understand the motives of the murderers?

My read on history is that universal morality causes a lot more history than relative morality. My read on history also suggests that employing universal morality tends to employ relative morality for implementation. Universally, the Cathars are heretics and should be butchered mercilessly. Universally, murder is bad but relatively, murder and rape of Cathars is good.

And if you can't see that with a Ph.D in Philosophy, you shouldn't be surprised when a 2nd grade teacher in Durango gives you a confused look.