The Instigator
BladeArcon482
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Kahvan
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Absolute truth exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,150 times Debate No: 15665
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

BladeArcon482

Con

Rules

1) You must prove that "absolute truth" exists.
2) If your "absolute truth" can be used against you on round one, then you have lost the debate and must post that you have lost the round.
3) The argument must be posted on this debate only, for if absolute truth exists, we must all know the truth, for absolute truth is inflexible.
4) Citations and links are not allowed. The reason is, if it was absolute truth, then you wouldn't need back up to prove absolute truth.
5) If citations and links are used by my opponent, then my opponent has lost.
6) The reason my opponent is getting one round is because, if absolute truth exists, it cannot be opposed. This, in turn, means it is fair, for absolute truth cannot opposed since it is absolute.

I will be giving my opponent the first round.
Kahvan

Pro

If there is no absolute truth then that is an absolute truth.

Either way you argue sir you have lost. If you argue that no absolute truth exists then that is an absolute truth. If you turn around to argue that an absolute truth does in fact exist then you are debating yourself.
Debate Round No. 1
BladeArcon482

Con

Let me point out a contradiction in your arguement. I see you said that, "If there is no absolute truth then that is an absolute truth." I also have come to see, however, that you have said this as well.

"If you turn around to argue that an absolute truth does in fact exist then you are debating yourself."

Thus, in turn, not only have you contradicted yourself by saying these, you have also said that you have lost within saying the following...

"Either way you argue sir you have lost."

For you have contradicted yourself. =]

Considering that you said "Either way you argue sir you have lost."

What if I was to say that neither Absolute Truth and No Absolute Truth exist. For, if absolute truth existed, then empires would have not fell ,like Rome. Also, if no absolute truth existed, we can say that because everytime you sit down, you explode. Is this a contradiction? Nope. Why? For if we take into account that everyone is different, then that in turn means that also means that everyone can be the same as well. How? Well it has been proven time and time again that people can change. Let us take cognitive things into consideration.

"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person One.
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two
"If this wall is blue, it is not black." - Person Three
"If this wall is black, it is not blue." - Person Four
"If this wall is black and blue, it is neither." - Person Five
"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six

So assuming we see that person one and six have the same views...

"It is absolute truth that it is blue!"

But then here comes the irony. Lets say some of them changed in fifteen years.

"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person One.
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Three
"If this wall is black, it is blue as well." - Person Four
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Five
"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six

Person Two, Four, and Five have overrided One and Six.

"Thus, the wall is black and blue!"

Now lets look at something beyond absolute truth and non-absolute truth.

"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person One
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Three
"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Four
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Five
"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six

So, now what? Now it is neither, thus, you have lost.
Kahvan

Pro

>>>Let me point out a contradiction in your arguement. I see you said that, "If there is no absolute truth then that is an absolute truth." I also have come to see, however, that you have said this as well.

"If you turn around to argue that an absolute truth does in fact exist then you are debating yourself."

Thus, in turn, not only have you contradicted yourself by saying these, you have also said that you have lost within saying the following...

"Either way you argue sir you have lost."

For you have contradicted yourself. =]<<<

Your first part of your second round argument is attempting to day that I contradicted myself. I; however, see no contradiction. All you have merely done is quote me and say that it is a contradiction yet you fail to explain why I have contradicted myself at any point in the argument. As a result of you failing to point out why I have contradicted myself then I feel that this entire section should not even be considered for this debate. What you have done would be similar to me saying that my math teacher contradicted himself by saying that 1+1=2 and then I fail to explain why.

What I simply did was prove that absolute truth existed. Now let us take a look at the next part of your argument.

>>>What if I was to say that neither Absolute Truth and No Absolute Truth exist. For, if absolute truth existed, then empires would have not fell ,like Rome. Also, if no absolute truth existed, we can say that because everytime you sit down, you explode. Is this a contradiction? Nope. Why? For if we take into account that everyone is different, then that in turn means that also means that everyone can be the same as well. How? Well it has been proven time and time again that people can change. Let us take cognitive things into consideration.<<<

Let me peel this apart for the readers.

"What if I was to say that neither Absolute Truth and No Absolute Truth exist." Then it is an absolute truth that it neither does or does not exist. Thus for two of the main theories present absolute truth does in fact exist. The two theories that have thus far come forth are the on presented by myself, that if absolute truth does not exist then that is an absolute truth. The second one was presented by my opponent. That neither absolute truth and no absolute truth exist. If that is the case then it is an absolute truth.

No matter what stance you take on absolute truth, or way you argue, then if it is the nature of absolute truth. Then that nature of absolute truth is an absolute truth.

"For, if absolute truth existed, then empires would have not fell ,like Rome." How is this relevant or logical in any way? You have failed to present even a reasonable semblance of logic as to why this would be, where as I, on the other hand, have given logical reasons and trains of thought. On top of simply giving them I have taken the time to explain why it is so.

"Also, if no absolute truth existed, we can say that because everytime you sit down, you explode. Is this a contradiction? Nope. Why? For if we take into account that everyone is different, then that in turn means that also means that everyone can be the same as well. How? Well it has been proven time and time again that people can change. Let us take cognitive things into consideration."

Ok, I am not sure I am following what you are discussing. It almost seems as though you have changed the topic. Perhaps that is me or perhaps it is not, I guess it is how I perceive things isn't it?

"Well it has been proven time and time again that people can change. Let us take cognitive things into consideration."

I am highlighting this because this is where your argument begins to take form. From this sentence you actually have presented something and are going to explain it. The problem is that you are talking about what people perceive. What people perceive may in effect not be the truth, but I will get to that later as we go through the rest of your argument. So now rather than talking about absolute truth we are talking about peoples perceptions.

I would like to note that thus far you have failed to support anything you have said with logic in relation to absolute truth were as I have, and only just now are we getting to your support and it is not about the question of if absolute truth exists (because that is what I am trying to prove) but now we are talking about how people perceive things. I will explain later why this fracture in my opponents argument does not relate to absolute truth.

Note to everyone reading in the following what is in parenthesis is what I am adding in this round.

>>> "If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two
"If this wall is blue, it is not black." - Person Three
"If this wall is black, it is not blue." - Person Four
"If this wall is black and blue, it is neither." - Person Five
"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six

So assuming we see that person one and six have the same views...

"It is absolute truth that it is blue!"

(False. While it may be true that that is what they perceive that may not be the case and on top of that you have failed to refute my example. If we were arguing where my absolute truth was that the wall was blue then you may have a point, but sadly my absolute truth is not that the wall is blue and so you fail to provide any manner of even a semblance of an effective counter argument to what I have stated. Do note that my argument is based in the fact that the nature of absolute truth is an absolute truth thus proving the existence of absolute truth)

But then here comes the irony. Lets say some of them changed in fifteen years.

"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person One.
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Three
"If this wall is black, it is blue as well." - Person Four
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Five
"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six

Person Two, Four, and Five have overrided One and Six.

"Thus, the wall is black and blue!"

Now lets look at something beyond absolute truth and non-absolute truth.

"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person One
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Two
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Three
"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Four
"If this wall is blue, it is also black." - Person Five
"If this wall is blue, it is blue." - Person Six

So, now what? Now it is neither, thus, you have lost.<<<

"So, now what? Now it is neither, thus, you have lost."

Unfortunately, while that may be the case for the example you provided, it in no way relates to what I have provided.

To finish this debate I would like to state the following. My opponent failed to refute any of my points. He merely stated that I contradicted myself and went on from there to discuss things that did not even relate to what I had proposed. This is a huge flaw as this debate is centered on him disproving my absolute truth. He failed to do so. Whereas I have not only solidified my argument but gone even further to dismantle my opponents argument even though it did not relate to the main issue. My final line will be an urge to vote for whomever you think it is that debated better. Whether or not you agree with my opponent I feel it important to vote for the better debater. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and I would also like to thank anyone who reads and or votes on this debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Kahvan 5 years ago
Kahvan
So what was this loophole?
Posted by BladeArcon482 5 years ago
BladeArcon482
Common man, there is a loophole in the rules.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
BladeArcon482KahvanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros contradiction stands
Vote Placed by lliwill 5 years ago
lliwill
BladeArcon482KahvanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: BladeArcon had no argument before the debate even started, you can't say that no absolute truths exist, that statement being an absolute truth in itself.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BladeArcon482KahvanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument fail, to note there is no absolute truth is not a statement of absolute truth any more than to say that the statement one can not know anything is a conditional of knowledge. I do not know anything - even this (Pyrrhonism).
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
BladeArcon482KahvanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con asserted an absolute truth by claiming that absolute truth did not exist.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
BladeArcon482KahvanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: While not handling it as well as he might have, Pro did refute Con's "argument." Con posted abusive rules trying to trap his opponent and give himself a cheap win, thus conduct goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
BladeArcon482KahvanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is right in that Con cannot argue for anything and not assert absolute truth. If Pro asserts that absolute truth does not exist... that is asserting an absolute and is therefore inconsistent.