Absolute truth exists
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
KeytarHero
| Started: | 5/4/2011 | Category: | Philosophy |
| Updated: | 2 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 660 times | Debate No: | 16301 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)
|
I wish to debate absolute truth with someone. It seems to be an increasingly popular philosophy that "what is true for you is true for you, but not for me." I believe this view fails when you really take a close look at it.
I accept this Debate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
![]() |
|
I would like to take a minute to thank my opponent, Phantom, for accepting my debate. I am new to this site, so forgive me if there's some etiquette I'm unfamiliar with. I am using this as a learning experience.
My argument for the existence of absolute truth is really three-fold. Argument one: The statement "there is no truth" is a self-defeating statement. In order for it to be true, it must be false. Therefore, there must be truth. And to add an addendum to it that the only truth is, in fact, that there is no truth is a cop-out. First of all, if the "only" truth is that there is no truth, then who's to say there aren't other truths? If you can have one truth, then there must be others. Secondly, if you're going to use a definitive statement that there is no truth, there must be true reasons to back that up. You must have arguments to support your premise. If these statements are also false (as the premise, itself, states), then the original statment must be incorrect. Argument two: There are definite absolute truths that we can observe. Everyone dies, it's just a natural process of living beings. Everyone requires food, water, and oxygen to live. There's no getting around it. There are absolute truths that occur in front of our very eyes. Argument three: There are subjective truths, and objective truths. A subjective statement is one in which there can be many truths. For example, if I say mint chocolate chip is the best ice cream, that's a subjective statement. It's only the best because it's my favorite flavor. Someone else may enjoy a different brand of ice cream, so to them another flavor may be the best. An objective statement is one that is true regardless of who believes it. Water is made up of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule. If I walk up to you and say, water is not H2O, water is actually C2HOAU, you're going to look at me as if I'm a crazy person. Water is H2O regardless of who believes it. This is an objective truth. It will not change, no matter who believes it. -Conclusion- While "there is no truth" seems to be a fairly common belief, under close scrutiny I don't believe it can be proven correct. I look forward to my opponent's response. phantom forfeited this round. |
![]() |
|
Well, seeing as though my opponent forfeited his last round, I have nothing to respond to. Which also means I won't have a chance to respond if he makes a round three argument. Please consider voting pro.
I'm an idiot. I appologize for a waisted debate. I'm afraid I will have to concede to pro. I do not see it fair or reasonable to post only one argument in a debate which my opponent cannot even refute. Therefore I must ask the voters to Vote pro. :( |
![]() |
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by JoshBrahm 2 years ago
| KeytarHero | phantom | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | ![]() | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | ![]() | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 5 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is the only one to make an argument, and it was an exceptional argument at that.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 2 years ago
| KeytarHero | phantom | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and Pro's arguments stood unchallenged
Vote Placed by Phoenix_Reaper 2 years ago
| KeytarHero | phantom | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 5 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 2 years ago
| KeytarHero | phantom | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | ![]() | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Clear forfeit.
















I'm surprised people debate this issue since to debate it to concede that there is absolute truth, whether you argue for it or against it. But there are actually well-educated people who argue this. For example, Greg Koukl debated Marvin Meyer on this subject. Marvin Meyer took the opposing view, and he had a Ph.D. He really seemed to believe was saying, too.