The Instigator
swagasaurus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
geho89
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Most Truth in reality is in the middle of two extreme options

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...
geho89
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 374 times Debate No: 84965
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

swagasaurus

Pro

This argument is about whether or not this statement is true:
"Most truths in reality are not Black and White. Rather, most truth is somewhere in the middle of two extremes."
When talking about 'black and white' and 'extremes' it refers to two very polar viewpoints on a topics truth in reality. For example, some persons take the stance that we live in a reality where good and evil are very black and white and there are actions that are absolutely evil and actions that are absolutely good. Different persons take the stance that there exists no good or evil in the universe. These are two polar opposites. However, someone with the viewpoint of the statement above (the one being debated about) may say that neither polar viewpoint is correct and that the real truth of good and evil is something of a mixture of the two polar viewpoints (i.e. good and evil exist, but the morality of actions and choices are not polar and can sometimes be both good and evil). The existence of morality is a bad example for this. A better example for the statement being debated is having two polar opposing political parties (such as a left wing authoritarian and a right wing libertarian) and choosing a party that has policies in between the two radical viewpoints (such as a moderate). The statement above does not say that polar extreme viewpoints are never true. However, the statement does say that they usually aren't true and that usually the true viewpoint is one in the middle.
For this debate I am arguing that the statement is a true one. I argue that most Truth in reality is in the middle of two extreme options.
geho89

Con

Hello Pro, I have accepted this debate and will argue against you that your claim is nonsensical and is far from the truth. I am looking forward to this debate and am eager to see what you will present since the burden of proof is on you for making this claim. Best of luck!


Firstly, I will define the meaning of "truth" as set forth in the Oxford Dictionaries as I will be relying on logic in determining "truth". It would also be helpful for Pro to define the definitions of "two extreme options" and show that this is the case by exhausting all possible options. With Pro's claim, I can visualize that with two extreme options and the middle as the truth, that there is a spectrum of options and the one in the middle is the truth. I would like Pro to define this spectrum and how to determine what is an extreme option and how to arrive to the middle as the truth.

truth:

1. The quality or state of being true
1.1. That which is true or in accordance with fact of reality
1.2. A fact or belief that is accepted as true

Secondly, I have a problem with Pro's quantifier of "most" and will not make any efforts to provide examples to counter the conclusion, "Most Truth in reality is in the middle of two extreme options". Even if I were to provide an example, Pro can easily dispute it by saying my example is not in the set of "most". Instead, I will make the argument that the conclusion is nonsensical and is a contradiction on itself.

Thirdly, I believe that Pro providing examples of truth between two extremes will not be sufficient to the conclusion. This is the case because it is impossible for a human to determine the set of all truths and showing that the majority of truth is between two extremes. How is a human to determine the reality and facts of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. How is a human to determine that there is more known knowns than unknown unknowns and infer that "most" truth are between two extremes with what is known. This will lead to inductive reasoning, which on itself will only provide the probable truth, but not the real truth. This is a problem since 99% factual is not 100% factual. There is no way to exhaust the set of truths.


My next point that I want Pro to address is the following: The radical of 2 is an irrational number. This statement is no doubt a truth in reality since mathematics is a representation of reality, but it is not a truth derived from the middle of two extreme options. A real number is either rational or irrational. Radical 2 is not rational nor irrational and there is some sort of truth in the middle of the extreme of rational and irrational.

Lastly, I will rebuttal Pro's premises of morality of good and evil and political parties that support the conclusion. Although Pro makes the claim of actions that are absolutely evil and actions that are absolutely good, which implies the existence of good and evil, and the polar opposite of the non-existence of good and evil, Pro does not provide a clear example of the true reality of this concept and why it would be true. There is also a contradiction in this view since the middle between the extreme of the existence and non-existence of absolute good and absolute evil is that there exists a good and evil that fits into reality. This is the fallacy of circular argument since the middle ground as good and evil existing implies the non-existence of good and evil, which supports some sort of existence of good and evil rather than the non-existence. See how this became a circular argument? This only limits the concept of good and evil into a subjective view rather than an objective view. "The radical of 2 is an irrational number" is objectively true. It is not necessary for Pro to spend time to support this premise before clearing my third point.

Pro uses the example of political parties to determine truth in determining policies. This example would need to clear my third point as well, but I will make a comment since I find it nonsensical. Viewpoints are based on the subjective prospective and preferences. Consider this example: I like strawberry favored ice cream over chocolate. First of all, how can one apply two extremes between strawberry and chocolate. This also does not account for vanilla and other options and the extreme is not able to exhaust the other options. My point is that it does not make sense to apply truth to preferences.
Debate Round No. 1
swagasaurus

Pro

swagasaurus forfeited this round.
geho89

Con

2 + 2 = 4
Debate Round No. 2
swagasaurus

Pro

swagasaurus forfeited this round.
geho89

Con

My opponent, Pro has not presented any evidence or relevant premises to support his assertion, "Most Truth in reality is in the middle of two extreme options" and have forfeited the remaining rounds. I am justified in making the claim to vote Con. Thank you for your time and good day!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Briannj17 1 year ago
Briannj17
DO I have an apple or a pea,
Two extremes that they may be,
However I cannot have a middle,
Your title amounts to spittle.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Truth is a ralative. Take away the relative, And there is no truth. Have a relative. And the truth will be an "extreme".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
swagasaurusgeho89Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture