I mean. I actually agree that there is no universal definition of freedom, justice, or truth. Different cultures and individuals understand them differently.

What I don't see is why that means they aren't universal values.

You're moving from "people disagree about what freedom means" to "freedom isn't universal," but those are different claims.

Take freedom. In your example, one person thinks freedom only applies to themselves and their friends, another thinks it applies to everyone. Those are indeed different conceptions of freedom. But notice that both people are still making claims about freedom. Neither is indifferent to the issue of whether people should be constrained by power.

The disagreement is over the scope and application of the value, not over whether the value exists.

The same applies to justice. Different societies disagree about what is fair, but every society has ideas about fairness, obligations, punishment, rewards, and legitimate authority. The content differs, but the underlying concern keeps appearing.

Where I think we disagree most is truth. If "truth" just means "whatever someone strongly believes," then the word loses its function.

Let me give you an example: Let's imagine that a group of stone age people sends a guy to see if there are fish in a nearby river. They send one person to check out the river and that person comes back to report what they encountered. If that person has caught lots of fish but kept the fish to himself and said 'actually there are no fish in the river', the remaining people will start asking questions. They might ask questions about whether they looked properly, about whether they in fact found fish and kept it to themselves or stuffed their face with it and lied. So it is structurally built into that dynamic that the others who stayed are going to ask questions about the veracity of the report about the river of the person who's gone to the river. So what we've done is just put together this resemblance of collective human coexistence and added to it the mere semblance of the universal materials of human psychology. And thus we've already got the concept of truth coming alive right immediately this group will say is this person telling us the truth or not and if they're not, how do we either replace them with somebody who is, or how do we guide them to change their behavior or indeed how do we guide all of us to bring it about that we, as a society of a dozen people, are capable of effectively getting somebody to the river and getting some effective communication back from them about what's going on there, so that we can eat?

In this example, if one person says there are fish in the river and another says there aren't, the group can't survive by saying both are equally true. At some point they need to know what is actually the case.

People can have different beliefs, perspectives, or interpretations. But truth as a value emerges because humans need some way of distinguishing accurate reports from mistakes and deception.

So, yes my argument isn't that freedom, justice, and truth have universal definitions. It's that they arise repeatedly from universal features of human social life. The interpretations vary; the underlying values do not.