The Instigator
Ambassador95
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
BlackPanther
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Objective truth exists and is knowable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Ambassador95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,000 times Debate No: 55976
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Ambassador95

Pro

I contend that objective truth (not merely subjective truth) is real and knowable. My opponent will argue that truth is either not objective, not knowable, or both.

First round is acceptance only.

6,000 character max

Definitions:

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.[1]

True - In accordance with fact or reality; real or actual [2]

Objective reality - [would] refer to anything that exists as it is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.).[3]

Subjective reality - [would] include anything depending upon some (broadly construed) conscious awareness of it to exist.[4]

To be sure that my opponent understands the nature of objectivity vs. subjectivity, it is imperative that we come to know that subjective truth's are dependent upon a subject, while something that is objectively true is wholly independent of anyone knowing it. Subjective truth then, might be different from person to person or culture to culture (such as a favorite ice-cream flavor or the 'right' side of the road to drive on). On the other hand, objective truth does not change, irrespective of people's opinions.

By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts the definition of these terms.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com......
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu......
[4] http://www.iep.utm.edu......
BlackPanther

Con

I accept and request that my opponent defines 'knowable' in round two.
Debate Round No. 1
Ambassador95

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate. I trust that this will be intellectual and that it will be seen through to the end. First, a definition:

To be knowable is simple to be able to know.

Know - to have information of some kind in your mind; to understand something; to have a clear and complete idea of something [1]

In our case then, the definition would apply in the following way: to have information about an objective truth in your mind; to understand an objective truth; to have a clear and complete idea of an objective truth. However, in examining the position that my opponent has taken, it seems to be an impossible debate for him to win. Allow me to explain.

(also, for the purpose of convenience, I will be using the personal pro-nouns "he" and "him" to refer to BlackPanther. I am not sure whether to use "him" or "her" and so he can correct me if this is not the case).

The proposition is that objective truth exists and is knowable. That is, there is at least one objective truth of reality. My opponent claims that this is not the case. It seems that BlackPanther is saying that my position is wrong. But that, in itself, is a truth claim. He is saying that his view is TRUE and my view is FALSE. In effect, he is affirming at least one knowable objective truth: namely that I am wrong. When my opponent accepted this debate then, he all but lost. I have then, one question at this point: is my view >objectively< false? If yes, then that is an objective truth. If no, then he is not holding up his end of the debate. You see, either way, I will win.

To illustrate this point, imagine I was arguing that the laws of logic did not exist. Suppose further that I made a logically air-tight case for that point. Would I have succeeded in showing that logic did not exist? No! I used in my argument the very thing I was trying to disprove! Take another example: suppose I wrote a brilliant essay arguing that the written word cannot convey meaning. Could I ever prove my case? Hardly! I would be defeating myself in using the very thing I am trying to deny. My case against logic then, would defeated itself just like my case against the meaning of the written word defeats itself. It would be like me saying that my biological brother is an only child. It simply cannot be done. In the same way, you cannot argue that a view is false and simultaneously deny the existence of truth. You would be using the very thing you are trying to deny.

To conclude then, if BlackPanther tries (or even succeeds) to prove me wrong, then I have won the debate. If he does not prove me wrong, then I have one the debate.

I look forward to my opponents case against the idea that objective truth does not exist.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
BlackPanther

Con

BlackPanther forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ambassador95

Pro

BlackPanther's profile is not longer active. There remains no point in continuing this debate.
BlackPanther

Con

BlackPanther forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ambassador95

Pro

Ambassador95 forfeited this round.
BlackPanther

Con

BlackPanther forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Ambassador95BlackPantherTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
Ambassador95BlackPantherTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually made arguments.
Vote Placed by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
Ambassador95BlackPantherTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF.