Isn't moral argumentation subjective though and based on the moral premises an audience is willing to accept? How can one make a crystalized train of thought that withstands the subjective nature of all audiences, when the spectrum of humanity ranges from billionaires and cannibals to popes and middle school teachers?

Or perhaps I'm incorrectly inferring from your use of the word "crystalized" that you're looking for near undefeatable resiliency.