You skipped the reply by O’Neil, which as far as I can tell utterly destroys Rasmussen and Den Uyl. Not that this is hard: their complicated logical argument is just wordplay, as I showed in just a few words in this thread. Osterfeld adds nothing on the pro-natural rights side, as I showed here.
As for Rand and objective value in general, this is probably the best short deconstruction: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/the-ancient-chimera-of-universal-absolute-and-objective-value/10456/177
But the main criticism always comes back to the fact that “objective value” is an incoherent term, because value requires a valuer so it is inherently subjective. No one has ever given a coherent definition, that I have seen.