The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is there an Absolute Truth?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 334 times Debate No: 91579
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




Hello. This year, I studied some philosophers and theologians who disagreed on whether or not there is an absolute truth, or if there are only particulars. Please only accept this debate if you are well versed in the subject and have read multiple articles, books, etc (In other words, evidence). I personally have read the works of Francis Schaeffer and find his arguments to be quite compelling, but I'd love some healthy competition from someone else to see if his arguments really hold up.
Absolute: Applying to all man.
Particular: Applying to only some men.
Man: The Human race.
Truth: What is correct and in accordance with reality.

DISCLAIMER: I am a Catholic. If you want to debate, keep in mind that I may refer to scripture, beliefs, and faith rather than science and the experimental method.


Thank You
Debate Round No. 1


I'll begin with an opening statement.

Absolute truth is necessary for order and for well-being.

Absolute truth gives order to society, while particulars will tear it apart. A government that used particulars to govern its citizens was the Roman Empire. The government allowed their people to believe whatever they believed, as long as they would worship Caesar. When Christianity exploded onto the scene, however, the Romans didn't know what to do! They had some who worshiped Caesar, and some who refused to. The Romans resorted to killing the Christians, to show an example, but the Christian influence kept growing and growing, to the point where Emperor Diocletian had to divide the empire into two halves: one that was governed by Rome, and one that was governed by Christianity. "One of the many factors that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire was the rise of a new religion, Christianity. The Christian religion, which was monotheistic ran counter to the traditional Roman religion, which was polytheistic (many gods). (" The Roman Empire fell apart because it divided its people into two different groups by using particulars rather than an absolute.

Second, absolute truth gives well-being to a society, while particulars give danger. Absolute truth gives morals to everyone, and particulars give morals to only some. For example, let's look at a particular society. In America, there are many thieves. According to his morals, stealing isn't wrong, it's a source of income. However, to you and me, stealing is wrong, because it deprives someone else of their earnings. The reason for these different morals are because we believe in different particulars: one which allows theft without moral repercussion, and one that advises against it. If these two people were governed by an absolute, this problem would subside, as they would have the same moral guidelines. The world would be much safer than it is today.

Thus concludes my opening.


I rather enjoy the feeling of a warm embrace. Have you ever felt one? They are so nice and fill me with delight. I do not know what this debate is about, you can keep arguing your points, but I will keep talking about hugs.

Debate Round No. 2


I rather enjoy it when both sides take a philisophical debate seriously. Have you ever seen one? They are so nice and fill me with delight.

This debate is on existence of an absolute truth. I will argue that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and Con will argue that there are only particulars. My round 2 argument was an opening, as headed and finished. It explains my position on the topic and where I will be going with my arguments. In my opening, I talk of how absolutes give structure (order), and how absolutes give morals (well-being). Round 3 is for constructives. Seeing as you have opened with, well, hugs, I'll begin my constructive.

Absolutes are proven because they are apperent in structure and in morals.

Structure: the way that a group of people are organized. (Merriam-Webster)
Morals: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior. (Merriam-Webster)

In order for any society to have a solid structure, they must have a strong intelectual base without dividing their people into different groups based on thier beliefs. This is exactly what an absolute does: it gives a common set of beliefs to all people. In a particular society (for example, a secular-humanistic society), however, it does the opposite. Now, the people have been divided into different groups, governed by different particulars. We will see prosperity and growth in the first form of government, while the latter will slowly detirorate.

Secondly, morals are only existent with a absolute. Particulars will always confilict with each other, but absolutes affirm each other. For example, one doesn't kill his neighbor for money, food, or other materialistic things. Why? There is the obvious answer that they will be punished by society, but this will only apply if they are caught. No, the real reason is because they know it is wrong. A quote from Francis Schaffer explains this well (1).




Corm_onthe_Cob forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Seeing that Con has forfited, extend my arguments from both rounds.

Vote Pro.


Seeing as I am a niggerfaggot, vote Pro. Mostly just did this to give this guy free points. Quite an upstanding gent.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lightseeker 5 months ago
like 2+2 =4?
Posted by Corm_onthe_Cob 5 months ago
No problemo hon. You seem like a real principled cavalier. Best of luck to your other opponent, you seem to have all your ducks in a row.
Posted by David_Debates 5 months ago
Thank you for the debate, Con. I might do the same debate with someone else, hopefully get someone to debate me that has researched the subject. Best of luck to you in future debates.
Posted by Corm_onthe_Cob 5 months ago
Posted by PowerPikachu21 5 months ago
Nice argument from Pro. Con, however... had no idea what an Absolute Truth is, so loves everyone. Not exactly an argument, but alright. Hopefully he disproves Absolute Truth in the 3rd Round.
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
it sure isnt a stone on my desk
Posted by mall 5 months ago
Doesn't take much to know that there's absolute truth . This debate challenge is absolute .
Posted by David_Debates 5 months ago
To avoid confusion:
Pro will argue that there is such a thing as "Absolute Truth."
Con will refute.
Pro will have burden of proof. Burden for this debate will be by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).
Con can have any worldview, belief system, etc. Note the disclaimer placed in the first round.
Both need not cite sources, but it would be beneficial to both debaters if they post where they got their information from, so that the opposition can rebut accordingly.
If you want to take on this debate, go right ahead! I haven't made it impossible to join.

Good luck to all of you!
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
imagination is false
Posted by ViceRegent 5 months ago
It is simple: to deny the existence of absolute truth is to affirm it, making the denial of its existence self-refuting.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 5 months ago
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: Concession