The first thing I found interesting was how the fact that truth conditional semantics can make valid arguments which directly contradicts non-cognitivism where they state that moral language is only opinions, commands etc.
Second, because we know that moral language can establish truth claims based off of valid arguments, it doesn't follow that moral language is full of simply opinions. Furthermore, the non-cognitivist view that moral language is just opinions can't form valid arguments at all; "what you freely assert, I freely dismiss."
I find it absolutely fascinating that an entire theory of philosophy can be obliterated by one argument. It really stakes the claim that truth can be found through rationality (assuming this is all true that is which it does seem likely).
So what do you guys think?