The Instigator
LostintheEcho1498
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ameliamk1
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

All Truth is Subjective

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Ameliamk1
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,574 times Debate No: 61411
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (4)

 

LostintheEcho1498

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Main Argument
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Final evidence(No Rebuttal)
Here is the definition for Truth:
the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true

: the quality or state of being true

: a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true
(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Here is subjective:
sub"jec"tive
səbG2;jektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms:personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive
"a subjective analysis"
antonyms:objective
dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
2.
GRAMMAR
of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.
(https://www.google.com...)

If you accept this debate then you accept the given format and definitions. Otherwise, any can debate.
Ameliamk1

Con

I accept your challenge, Sir.

BOP I assume is shared. As the statement "All Truth is Subjective" is (ironically) absolute, my prerogative is to provide at least one valid counter-example.

Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
LostintheEcho1498

Pro

Thank you for accepting and I hope for a healthy debate. I also confirm that BoP is shared.

To begin:
1. As I stated earlier and will restate now:
the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true

: the quality or state of being true

: a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true
(http://www.merriam-webster.com......)

sub"jec"tive
səbG2;jektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
synonyms:personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive
"a subjective analysis"
antonyms:objective
dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
2.
GRAMMAR
of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.
(https://www.google.com......)

2. With these definitions in mind, I ask what is truth? Truth is something that we accept as a "fact". These facts make up modern day belief such as Einstein's theory of relativity and how if you jump you don't leave the planet because of the magnetic force of the Earth. These facts are common knowledge of today. We know these things. But is it the truth? Much of what we believe through time has changed. Going back 500 years it was common knowledge that the world is flat. Around the same time the Earth was the center of the universe. Now we "know" that the Earth is spherical and that we are not even the center of our solar system. What we know is and always will be changing. The idea of truth is impossible except that it is accepted by you.

3. I believe in the Mormon beliefs. It is my truth. Belief is so powerful that it can even kill. In this forum(http://www.debate.org...) I gave this story which I will revise to the actual version found in the book "The Primitive Mind and Modern Man" found on page 172. Here is the link:(http://books.google.com...)
This story was also aired on the television show Dark Matters: Twisted but True. Here is the link to the wiki page.Check season 2 episode 3.
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
In this story it talks about a man who was hexed by a voodoo priest in a ceremony. The man went to a hospital and told the doctors that he had been hexed and as he was in the hospital he became near death. The doctors saw nothing wrong with but he was obviously dying. One doctor then came with a plan. He told the man that during the ceremony the priest had caused lizard eggs to grow in his stomach and now the lizard was eating him. He then got a bucket and gave the man a strong emetic which caused him to vomit. The doctor slipped a lizard into the bucket and then showed it to the man. He told the man he had been cured of his curse. After this he quickly recovered.
The power of the mind is powerful in its ability to believe in something so strongly that it becomes truth. Therefore I refer back to the definition of subjective. This man's total perception was that voodoo was true. If you asked anyone on the street the majority would say that voodoo is fake. The truth of one man to another is entirely subjective to belief. If I believe in something strong enough then it is my own truth just as this man's truth was that he was cursed. Therefore truth can only be subjective.
Over to you Con.
Ameliamk1

Con

I thank my opponent for their opening round.

Now, before I begin proper, I think a clarification of "truth" is necessary. While Pro helpfully provided a definition in the acceptance round, he seems to think truth has two requirements. So I would like to counter this by offering a two-part proposition:

1. Reality need not exist for something to be true.

A computer game may seems an epic adventure, but is, in fact, simply pixels on a screen. This may be how my opponent sees reality, possibly even more abstractly. However, that does not mean that certain things true within the game are therefore falsified as a result of the game's departure from reality. On the same token, reality may be utterly void but that does not mean certain things cannot be true within our illusion. So I can perfectly well accept that premise, and it does not temper my case in any way.

2. Not everyone need agree with a statement for it to be true

One's "idea of truth", as my opponent puts it, has no implication on the truth of the matter, similar to how there could be absolute morality, even if not everyone practices it. Anything can be denied, or redefined (for example, the number 2 could hold a different value for a lunatic), but that does not change the fact that by accepted, dictionary definition, something can remain accurate. According to Webster, absolute is "free from imperfection." (1) The invalid denial of an unstable or possibly sinister force speaks not on subjectivity, but on the human condition.

Furthermore, Philosophy.com defines the entire phrase in question, absolute truth, as "inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts." (2) While few statements or bits of knowledge adheres to this stringent definition, such declarations do exist, and the ability of someone to pretend said declaration is false does not ultimately invalidate its claim.

Truth Vs. Opinion

It seems to me that in this debate, the distinction of these two terms are all-important. The fact of the matter and what people think the fact is are often diametrically opposed. Let's take a polemical topic: the question of whether God exists. Whatever peoples' varying views of the matter may be, there is a correct answer in that there either is a god(s) or there isn't. That is called absolute truth, and in this sense it undoubtedly exists. To these questions, there are answers, even if our pitifully limited minds may never reach them. However, what my point is is that truth, therefore, is not, and cannot be subjective as long as there is a correct answer. Opinions can change, but the reality (even if it doesn't exist) will remain the same. Truth does not alter itself for different opinions, and thus is not a matter of subjectivity.

Absolute Truth and Morality

While I briefly alluded to this comparison in my opening paragraph, I will expand it now. My impressive opponent professes the Mormon faith; thus, though I could be wrong, I assume he believes in God's absolute morality. This being true, I would like to issue the following challenge to him: how can absolute morality exist if not everyone subscribes to it? And how can he say morality is "real" despite its non-universality but also say truth is not because of its non-universality? My opponent's faith and argument seem quite exclusive and possibly even hypocritical, and I would like to hear what he has to say in response.

Can Truth be Subjective?

Reading through what I have written, I will confess that a valid criticism that could be made of my work is that my focus remains too much along what is true, and not so much what is subjective. And before I conclude my beginning statement, I should remedy this by connecting the two portions of my argument. Were the proposition "people's perception of truth is subjective", I would be inclined to concur. Indeed, I suspect my opponent would struggle to find a rational opponent running with hat to line. However, the key word is whether "all truth" is subjective or not. And truth, at least some, is certainly, certainly objective, regardless of how one sees it or thinks of it. This debate is not so much about people as it is about truth, and truth, whatever nuggets of it exist, is not subjective.

On that note, I will conclude my opening gambit. Best of luck to my opponent in the upcoming round, and I look forward to continuing our discussion.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...
Debate Round No. 2
LostintheEcho1498

Pro

1. "Reality need not exist for something to be true.

A computer game may seems an epic adventure, but is, in fact, simply pixels on a screen. This may be how my opponent sees reality, possibly even more abstractly. However, that does not mean that certain things true within the game are therefore falsified as a result of the game's departure from reality. On the same token, reality may be utterly void but that does not mean certain things cannot be true within our illusion. So I can perfectly well accept that premise, and it does not temper my case in any way."

Something that is true only exists as truth in the eye of the beholder.

While a computer game may seem epic or as pixels, I ask how we "know" this. Well, in our opinion the game was epic. That is the easier of the two to name subjective. As for pixels, there was a man who thought he created something and named the dots on the screen pixels. So are these dots really pixels or are they only pixels to those who believe the man when he called them pixels? We do not know if these"pixels" are named something else by someone else and so what makes the use of pixel more truthful? This would be because it is more widely believed and so perceived as truth. Moving on, when my opponent says, " On the same token, reality may be utterly void but that does not mean certain things cannot be true within our illusion." it seems he concedes a small point to me here that reality may or may not exist. The "truth" of our existence may not even be true but he also points out that certain things may be true within our own illusion. This is exactly my thesis. Truth is subjective. Someone's illusion of truth is entirely his own and thus is subjective.

2. "Not everyone need agree with a statement for it to be true

One's "idea of truth", as my opponent puts it, has no implication on the truth of the matter, similar to how there could be absolute morality, even if not everyone practices it. Anything can be denied, or redefined (for example, the number 2 could hold a different value for a lunatic), but that does not change the fact that by accepted, dictionary definition, something can remain accurate. According to Webster, absolute is "free from imperfection." (1) The invalid denial of an unstable or possibly sinister force speaks not on subjectivity, but on the human condition."

I will accept his topic sentence and point out this. If not everyone accepts something as truth but one does, then whose truth is it? Let me explain this. A man who is a conspiracy theorist believes that conspiracies are truth. A normal man has no belief in conspiracies. Who is right? According to the topic sentence, it would be both. Not everyone believes in conspiracies and so it is a lie to them but for the theorists their truth is in the conspiracies. Therefore, people would try to determine who is right or wrong. The problem is that those determining who was right or wrong are simply finding what they believe to be true which is then accepted by majority. Moving to the body, he points out that "One's idea of truth" has no implication to what would be the real truth. The problem here is that the perception of one person to another differs and so the truth can change from one to another. Therefore, who can determine these "absolute truths"? The whole idea of an absolute truth is a truth created and believed by someone. How can we determine if this is true? Using the definition of absolute being "free from imperfection" we see that a truth being absolute would have to have no problems within and so be perfect. Then the problem being, who determines if this truth is imperfect or not? Man's truths are only those that we create.
"Furthermore, Philosophy.com defines the entire phrase in question, absolute truth, as "inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts." (2) While few statements or bits of knowledge adheres to this stringent definition, such declarations do exist, and the ability of someone to pretend said declaration is false does not ultimately invalidate its claim."

This idea is a good one but has a single problem. The belief that something can be declared untrue and not invalidate the claim just means that people have some things that they believe in so much more that they are not going to change their opinion without a drastic show of what they would think as proof to the contrary. This simply makes argument here a circle because it has one side saying that this is the truth and so cannot change with another saying that it is only true because you believe it is. Therefore, we have to decide which we believe which then still follows the idea of truth being subjective.

"Truth Vs. Opinion

It seems to me that in this debate, the distinction of these two terms are all-important. The fact of the matter and what people think the fact is are often diametrically opposed. Let's take a polemical topic: the question of whether God exists. Whatever peoples' varying views of the matter may be, there is a correct answer in that there either is a god(s) or there isn't. That is called absolute truth, and in this sense it undoubtedly exists. To these questions, there are answers, even if our pitifully limited minds may never reach them. However, what my point is is that truth, therefore, is not, and cannot be subjective as long as there is a correct answer. Opinions can change, but the reality (even if it doesn't exist) will remain the same. Truth does not alter itself for different opinions, and thus is not a matter of subjectivity."

The use of "absolute truth" is the most essential part of this argument and so I will address first. You believe that somewhere along the line something has to end up as truth. This belief is the truth that you hold as being true. What I believe is true is in one of my favorite quotes. "Believing is knowing." We know only through belief and cannot change that. Even what I just said was me showing my truth but that can be different with others. Opinion is truth. Everything we think is true, factual, or absolute in being correct is only that way because it believe it is so.

"Absolute Truth and Morality

While I briefly alluded to this comparison in my opening paragraph, I will expand it now. My impressive opponent professes the Mormon faith; thus, though I could be wrong, I assume he believes in God's absolute morality. This being true, I would like to issue the following challenge to him: how can absolute morality exist if not everyone subscribes to it? And how can he say morality is "real" despite its non-universality but also say truth is not because of its non-universality? My opponent's faith and argument seem quite exclusive and possibly even hypocritical, and I would like to hear what he has to say in response."

First time I have been called impressive. Thanks. Now to answer you.
1. I do believe in God's absolute morals
2. Some do not subscribe by choice. We came on this Earth with free agency and we can use it as we see fit. If someone does not like morals, they can believe that all they want. That is their right.
3. I do not say that truth is not real. I say that all truth is subjective. There is a underlying difference here.
4. To put this all together, I believe in my faith and believe it is true. Therefore, to me, it is truth. That is not the case for many(as in they don't believe what I do) but it does not change what my truth is.

"Can Truth be Subjective?

Reading through what I have written, I will confess that a valid criticism that could be made of my work is that my focus remains too much along what is true, and not so much what is subjective. And before I conclude my beginning statement, I should remedy this by connecting the two portions of my argument. Were the proposition "people's perception of truth is subjective", I would be inclined to concur. Indeed, I suspect my opponent would struggle to find a rational opponent running with hat to line. However, the key word is whether "all truth" is subjective or not. And truth, at least some, is certainly, certainly objective, regardless of how one sees it or thinks of it. This debate is not so much about people as it is about truth, and truth, whatever nuggets of it exist, is not subjective.

On that note, I will conclude my opening gambit. Best of luck to my opponent in the upcoming round, and I look forward to continuing our discussion"

We see here again the idea of absolute truth. The idea that somewhere along the line there has to be something that is true, despite what others may believe, is completely subjective. I may be sounding redundant at this point and I apologize but it is important to get this across. To have an absolute truth would be found by those who would believe it. I refer back to my story of the cursed man in my opening. This man would not have changed his idea of voodoo being real no matter how much he was told it was fake. If anything, his belief was strengthened by the experience. Therefore we try to determine whose is the absolute truth. The problem is that by determining whose is absolute we are making a judgement call that creates a subjective truth.

Good luck con and I appreciate your professional tone to the debate. With that, I close and hand the torch back to you and hope the debate stays as interesting as it has so far.
Ameliamk1

Con

I thank my opponent for his excellent rebuttals.

It seems to me everything is simpler when formatted as a premise and conclusion. So I will begin with my argument in that form, defend each contention and the conclusion separately, before advancing to rebuttals.

P1. Whatever people may believe, there are truths to matters. (Eg. "Is there a God?" has an answer, which is by definition an absolute one)

P2. Truth cannot alter for different people.

C. Therefore, people's views may differ, but the truth itself cannot change, and thus cannot be subjective.

1. Certainly not all questions possess "real" responses; many call solely for opinion. However, simply through basic logic, there are postulations which must indeed have a unquestionable answer. For example, my opponent believes in absolute morals, and if he thinks this to be true, must concede this first contention.

In his second round, Pro says "Opinion is truth. Everything we think is true, factual, or absolute in being correct is only that way because it believe it is so." This sentence astounds me. Not only does my opponent say that opinion is subjective, which is missing the point of the debate but at least true, but here appears to be saying whatever one thinks to be true, must be. Now, a more subtle element of this over-the-top phrase is that since we cannot truly know anything, we must assume there are no answers. Not so. No one can ever be sure of anything, especially if the existence of reality is in question, but that does not change the one simple fact: there are truths, even if we cannot find them.

2. Here, a distinction must be established (once again) between views and truth itself. While obviously I fully concede people see the world differently, and have greatly varying replies to the same query, the truth of matters do not in themselves morph to suit the needs of opinionated people. I speak here of the truth itself, which is definite.

3. As you might imagine, in my mind the two premises are an excellent sequitur to this conclusion. However, a brief defense is necessary. Simply put: truth is objective, what us ignorant humans think is entirely subjective. And recalling the proposition upon which this debate is grounded, it is the truth in question, which is, regardless of whose right or wrong, absolute and objective.

The incoherency of the phrases "My Truth" and "Your Truth"

My opponent uses this head-scratching statement multiple times in discussing how one's opinion is equivalent to "truth". Indeed, he suggests that absolute morals, a truth in its own right, exist in the form of divine commands. Using that example, if absolute morals are real, then me saying my "truth" is different would simply be puerile. In matters for which there is a truth, there is not "my truth" and "your truth". There is only right and wrong. Remember, truth is the impeccable reality of what really is, so by definition it is impossible for there to be opposing truths, if, of course, the topic possesses an absolute truth.

My opponent's problem, I suspect, is the word "truth" itself. How people view the world and reality is one thing; how the world actually is is quite another, and the people's opinions who happen to be wrong cannot ever be described as truth. Only opinion. Like I said in my previous argument, "how people see the world is subjective" would be a slam dunk, but to argue that the truth itself is subjective, and hence doesn't exist, is nigh impossible.

My Previous-Round Challenge and Self-Defeat

While I have great respect for my opponent and his debating prowess, the non-answer I received to my absolute moral challenge (which I will not restate here) unintentionally supports my case as organized above. My opponent, by confirming my assumption that he subscribes to divine morality, accepts my first premise by conceding that certain things do have total, and in this case Godly truth. The second contention follows: that while many oppose the theory of these omni-morals, it nevertheless does not mean that they don't exist, as my opponent states they do. So unless my adversary finds the conclusion a non-sequitur of its supporting points, I see no way for him to deny it without hypocrisy. By claiming truth is entirely opinion, while also holding belief in certain truth as an extension of his faith, Pro has backed himself into a metaphorical corner, from which there is little escape.

Truth and Reality

Few characters are offered in response to my argument that truth can exist without reality, but since it is so integral to my case, I should solidify the stance anyway. Let's say reality is entirely imaginative, and everything is a cerebral or possibly external illusion. To counter, all that would be require is to begin any statement with "within this illusion", or at the very least "within this existence, an illusion or otherwise". The fact or opinion serving as the eventual conclusion of the sentence could then precede normally. Indeed, the state of reality has little to no bearing on truth. In fact, that very question of whether we inhabit a reality has an answer, yet another unalterable truth.

Response to Challenge and Conclusion

"The idea that somewhere along the line there has to be something that is true, despite what others may believe, is completely subjective." Not a bad point, but ultimately frivolous. I think it to be quite likely that there are absolute truths, or at the very least real explanations. But it really matters not if there are, as the answer to this question being "no" is in itself a truth. One way or another, something is true.

I will conclude here, as I think I understand my opponent and I's real disagreement. Is humanity's inability to know something positively, to have an absolute grasp of something, mean that that thing cannot exist, in this case truth. I say no, mankind may well never get a single solid, impeccable answer, but that does not effect the question at hand, "is all truth subjective?", which it isn't.

With that said, good luck to my opponent, and I anticipate another fine round of arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
LostintheEcho1498

Pro

LostintheEcho1498 forfeited this round.
Ameliamk1

Con

Arguments extended through final round.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
I need to sincerely apologize. I failed to debate the final round due to personal issues but even so is no excuse. I appreciate your professionalism Ameliamk1 and apologize. I concede to con as I have failed to debate although at this point seems unnecessary. I failed to keep my end of the debate and so apologize again.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
If the universe is in fact subjective it would still likely have objective truths. There would be rules about how the SU would form out of our perceptions and what we were capable of shaping in an SU.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
Alright,then I shall create that first thing in the morning tomorrow and finish it later in the evening. Anyway, thanks for proving more than capable of the debate. I was worried some that someone would take the debate and troll it or have no clue what I was talking about so thank you for that. I hope to do this again some time.
Posted by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
Ameliamk1
I issued a challenge, and you may respond without incurring a penalty.
Posted by PGA 2 years ago
PGA
George Orwell: "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (^8

Peter
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
@Ameliamk1 "While I have great respect for my opponent and his debating prowess, the non-answer I received to my absolute moral challenge (which I will not restate here) unintentionally supports my case as organized above. My opponent, by confirming my assumption that he subscribes to divine morality, accepts my first premise by conceding that certain things do have total, and in this case Godly truth. The second contention follows: that while many oppose the theory of these omni-morals, it nevertheless does not mean that they don't exist, as my opponent states they do. So unless my adversary finds the conclusion a non-sequitur of its supporting points, I see no way for him to deny it without hypocrisy. By claiming truth is entirely opinion, while also holding belief in certain truth as an extension of his faith, Pro has backed himself into a metaphorical corner, from which there is little escape."

I would like to answer this in my last round but that would be against my idea of no rebuttal and so ask for an exception as this is a direct question . If not, I will simply not address it and I will move on to final evidence or I could answer it here. All up to you.
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
Ah I see you have caught on. I also have little to do with postmodernism and pluralism. I thought about this and came up with the end solution that all truth is subjective.
1. 2+2 can equal something else. I heard about this from my Dad but am unable to verify exactly why.

2. Now you see what I am getting at. Nothing is an absolute truth but a truth to us. Some of us seek these personal truths and others find us but I have determined that all the truth that we have derived from one man's truth which became widespread. As for something being different from your belief, you make a good point. You point out that our truths are subject to change. We may be proven wrong or think we have been proven right such as the Miller-Urey experiment. Even then, they may still have been right and we don't know it.

3. I prove it because it is what is true to me. It is what I believe and so I share it. If I were mixed up I would have caught my head and reeled it back in by now. Or at least I would like to believe so. The point is that while all truth may be subjective some of these deserved to be shared and thought about as we are doing now.
Posted by PGA 2 years ago
PGA
I do not respect a belief that is not true. I believe truth is most important and I seek to know it. As for believing that I am Peter, but as far as I know I could be Brain, I think you are being ridiculous in your postmodernism and pluralism.

As I said before, two opposing beliefs cannot both be true in the same respect and at the same time. It goes against logic and the very laws of logic you are using to communicate. If the Mormon idea of God is true then the Christian idea is false and visa verse. You are suggesting that truth changes yet how can something that is true be false?

YOU SAID: "As far as we are concerned 2+2 could equal something completely different."

Where has 2+2 ever equaled anything but 4?

YOU SAID: "These "facts" of our world have changed over history. Everything is subject to change, including truth. If this is the case, then THERE IS NO TRUTH."

So, if this is the case then what you have said is not true. Are you wiling to go there because you keep making all kinds of self-refuting postmodern statements that contradict the very things you are saying. Your kind of position makes it very difficult to live with. In fact the very statement "there is no truth" makes a truth claim.

One thing I have learned over the years is that truth can never be false or else it would not be true. Now you can believe something to be true and it turn out false but then your belief was not true from the start.

If we all went through life believing truth is whatever you make it or that truth constantly changes we would not be able to know anything. That is why truth needs to be guarded and defended because there are so many superficial claims out in the marketplace.

YOU SAID: ""There is nothing we can possibly do to completely prove something as we do not have this level of intellect."

Yet here you are trying to prove something. Why if nothing is true?

How do you make sense of any of this? I think you are extremely mixed up.

Pet
Posted by LostintheEcho1498 2 years ago
LostintheEcho1498
I see you have missed this concept. Let me enlighten you:
1. All that we think we know is malleable and subject to change. There is not a single thing is this vast universe that is not our opinion of what we believe. You believe you are Peter. You cannot know this. I know it sounds silly but as far as you know you are Brian and just had your memories changed. Or you changed your name. Then people would say that the original name would be the truth, correct? The problem there is that we may have been very different before this life. We cannot know. We "know" quite literally nothing. As far as we are concerned 2+2 could equal something completely different. These "facts" of our world have changed over history. Everything is subject to change, including truth. If this is the case, then there is no truth. There is nothing we can possibly do to completely prove something as we do not have this level of intellect. Also, your jibe for religion was not needed and I'd appreciate if you can have some respect for religion. I will respect your belief and so I ask you do the same.
Posted by PGA 2 years ago
PGA
"That is your idea of truth. You believe that 2+2=4. That may differ to another person." -LostintheEcho1498

It may differ but it is either true or it is not true no matter what the person believes. It cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same relationship.Truth is not relative in this sense of 2+2-4. What I mean is if something is true it is true. Either 2+2=4 is true or it is not. Now if you or someone else wants to live in this world believing 2+2=5 or that Mormanism is true, that is your business.

You talk about something as being 'my truth.' Your truth' has to line up with what really is in order for it to be true. Just because you believe something to be true does not necessarily mean it is.

As for me, my name is Peter, I live at a specific address on a specific street in a specific country and I have been married for a specific period of time and only once. This statement is either true to what is real about me or it is false. It would depend on what those specifics were. It cannot be both true and false at the same time just because you believe it and another person does not. That would go against the laws of logic and rationality. Now if you want to be illogical then that is also up to you. You can only go so far being illogical and irrational before it catches up to you.

If you want to believe a red traffic light means 'Go' then I pity you and those who come across you driving.

Peter
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
LostintheEcho1498Ameliamk1Tied
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: Pro argued that all truth is subjective because truths that people believe are true is constantly changing. This is a misapplication of the word "truth" being used as "believed to be true." Therefore, he concludes, if everyone has different beliefs on what is true, all truth is subjective. "All truth is subjective" must necessarily be an objective truth in order for Pro to make his case and Con pointed this out in the opening round. Con won the debate because he pointed out that the debate considered "all" truth and not just believed truth, and therefore since Pro admitted absolute truths exist, this would entail absolute truths all well - which are not subjective. Pro loses conduct for FF final round.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
LostintheEcho1498Ameliamk1Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, so Conduct goes to Con. Pro himself admitted that absolute truths exist so arguments to Con and Con also get's sources as he just barely edges Pro in the sources count.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LostintheEcho1498Ameliamk1Tied
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: ff, and pro himself admitted absolute truths existed
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
LostintheEcho1498Ameliamk1Tied
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: Conduct to con for the single forfeit and I would advise con not to just type extend at the end next time that happens, but to take the time to advise the judges how the arguments should be weighed. Pro conceded that an absolute moral truth did exist which proves that there is a truth that isn't subjective, but beyond that; Pro needed to show the reverse of what he was arguing. He argued that our perceptions of the world are constantly changing, but what he needed to show was that our perceptions influenced the actual state of the world. If the world influences our perceptions (as varied as they are), than that's an argument for an objective universe and truth. In order for pro to win this debate he had to show that our perceptions affect the universe. Without more compelling evidence, I have to walk away from this believing that an objective universe exists and that our perceptions have no bearing on the shape of that objective universe. Continued